STUDIA LATINA ET GRAECA
Letnik XXII, številka 2, Ljubljana 2020
KERIA
Cf
Univerza v Ljubljani
DRUŠTVO ZA ANTIČNE IN HUMANISTIČNE ŠTUDIJE SLOVENIJE
SOCIETAS SLOVENIAE STUDIIS ANTIQUITATIS ET HUMANITATIS INVESTIGANDIS
Contents
Special issue: A Glimpse into Greek Linguistics
Editorial....................................................................................................................5
ARTICLES
Geoffrey Horrocks: What's in the Middle?
Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?...........................................................7
Mark Janse: Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural
and Grammatical Gender in Greek...............................................................25
Brian D. Joseph: What is not so (E)strange
about Greek as a Balkan Language...............................................................57
Matej Hriberšek: Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the
Intersection of Slovenian and Greek..............................................................85
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, and Christopher Brown: Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists:
Taking Advantage of Continuity..................................................................119
Vsebina
Posebna številka: Pogledi na grško jezikoslovje
Uvodnik....................................................................................................................5
RAZPRAVE
Geoffrey Horrocks: Kaj je na sredini?
Dva ali trije načini v stari grščini?...................................................................7
Mark Janse: Spol in ujemanje: (ne)skladja med naravnim
in slovničnim spolom v grščini.......................................................................25
Brian D. Joseph: Kaj balkanskega grščini ni zelo (od)tuje(no)..........................57
Matej Hriberšek: Na presečišču med slovenščino in grščino:
leksikograf Dominik Penn in njegovo delo....................................................85
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph in Christopher Brown: Kako učiti klasične filologe novo grščino:
uporabni vidik jezikovne kontinuitete.........................................................119
DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.4312/keria.22.2.5-6
Editorial
In May 2018, the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts hosted the first conference in the series A Glimpse into Greek Linguistics. Its purpose was to shed light on aspects of synchronic and diachronic research on Greek and to promote the study of this language in Slovenia. The initiative was born out of cooperation with Christina Manouilidou, who has worked at the Department of Comparative and General Linguistics in recent years after coming to Ljubljana from the University of Patras. A year and a half later, on January 15th, 2020, with the generous support of the Cankar Center, the largest Slovenian cultural and congress venue, Christina and I organized the second conference in A Glimpse into Greek Linguistics. This time, the conference was included in the program of festival "On Mt. Olympus"—a nine-month series of cultural and research events dedicated to Ancient Greek ideas and technological achievements—and was one of the main events of the festival. Both conferences brought together a mix of young and established researchers working on Greek.
A result of our efforts for the in-depth study of Greek in Slovenia is also the present international issue of the journal Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca, which contains contributions by six participants from the second conference in A Glimpse into Greek Linguistics. The editors of the journal are honored and pleased to publish articles written by three truly established scholars: Geoffrey Horrocks, Mark Janse, and Brian Joseph. In the article "What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?" Geoffrey Horrocks reexamines the function of the Ancient Greek middle, drawing attention to shortcomings of the traditional view on this grammatical voice and proposing a new explanatory concept. Mark Janse discusses the topic of sex and gender in Greek—a particularly compelling (and controversial) issue. Furthermore, Brian Joseph explores the position of Greek within the Balkan languages in the article "What Is Not So (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language." He is also the coauthor of the article "Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity," in which a group of linguists that started learning and
6
Editorial
exploring Modern Greek through its ancient predecessor explain their views on how Modern Greek could be taught to classicists.
Some aspects of the volume may raise additional attention among Slovenian readers. First and foremost, Matej Hribersek from the Department of Classics at the University of Ljubljana discusses a nineteenth-century attempt to write Slovenian in a version of the Greek alphabet (grscica), which remained virtually forgotten for more than a century. Because the work of Dominik Penn is barely known even among Slovenian scholars, his English article is followed by a longer summary in Slovenian. It is also satisfying to read about the contribution of the Slovenian linguists Jernej Kopitar and Franz Miklosich to Balkan linguistics; they are mentioned in Brian Joseph's article on Balkan features in Greek. Furthermore, Slovenian classicists may find it interesting to hear about the amount of common Ancient and Modern Greek vocabulary that they may have learned while using the Ancient Greek textbook by the late Slovenian classicist Erika Mihevc Gabrovec. This is one of the issues discussed in the aforementioned article about teaching Modern Greek to classicists. Last but not least, the picture on the cover draws attention to a rare witness of the presence of Greek in Slovenian territory. It shows the Blue Vessel, a well-preserved ancient bowl with the inscription niE ZHZAIZ AEI nOAAOE XPONOIZ, 'Drink, live forever, for a long time', which dates back to the fourth century AD and was found during recent excavations near Gosposvetska cesta (Maria Saal Street) in Ljubljana.
I believe that the variety of issues discussed in this volume also bears witness to the appeal of Greek linguistics. On behalf of the editors of the journal Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca, I express sincere thanks to the Cankar Center and to Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts, which made its publication possible. Thanks also go to all the contributors and participants in the conference series A Glimpse into Greek Linguistics for their support of our efforts.
Jerneja Kavčič December 20, 2020
DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.4312/keria.22.2.7-23
Geoffrey Horrocks
What's in the Middle?
Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
1. INTRODUCTION
When students start to learn Ancient Greek, they quickly learn that the language has three grammatical voices, active, middle and passive, which in different ways articulate the relationship between grammatical functions like subject, direct object and indirect object, and semantic roles like agent, patient and experiencer. The three voices are functionally characterised by Allan (2014) in the short abstract that begins his article on Voice in the online Encyclopedia of Greek Language and Linguistics:
While the active voice is semantically unmarked, the middle voice expresses that the subject is affected. The passive voice indicates that the subject is a fully affected patient/theme or experiencer.
The immediate problem in Allan's characterisation is the absence of a sharply defined contrast between the middle and the passive. Since the middle and passive are formally distinct only in the aorist and future, and then only in part (see §2 below), they are in fact treated as a single but polysemous "mediopassive voice" indicating varying degrees of the "affectedness" of the subject. But this approach obscures a fundamental difference between the passive and the middle which will now be explored.
On the one hand, the active-passive relationship is highly regular and productive in that sentences containing active transitive verbs almost always have intransitive passive counterparts regardless of the lexical meaning of the verbs involved. This is, in other words, an essentially syntactic relationship with predictable structural and semantic effects, as summarised in (1), where the agent
8
Geoffrey Horrocks
of the active sentence has been downgraded to the status of optional adjunct in the passive counterpart, and the patient of the active sentence has become the subject of the passive one:
(1)	subject - active verb - object < > subject - passive verb (- by-phrase)
agent predicate patient	patient predicate	agent
The fanatics burned the books.	The books were burned (by the fanatics).
The same situation can therefore be described in two different ways—or equivalently, in two different grammatical voices.
By contrast, it is much more difficult to characterise the middle voice (even the name is vague, implying a function of unspecified nature between those of the active and passive). This is because its function is neither regular nor predictable. The term is typically employed in general linguistics to cover a range of detransitivisation processes that have effects similar to those of the passive, but with some crucial differences. Consider first the English examples in (2):
(2)	(a) This essay reads beautifully.	core "middle" use of a verb
(b)	Max washed/shaved/dressed (i.e., himself). implicit reflexive use of a verb
(c)	The door is closing.	anticausative use of a verb
In each case a normally active transitive verb is used intransitively, but now, as in the passive, the subject denotes the theme or patient of the action, whether exclusively, as in (2a) and (2c), or in combination with the agent, as in (2b). An external agent may be implied in both (2a) and (2c), but this cannot be identified with a fry-phrase: e.g. *this essay reads beautifully by the professor is unacceptable. Notice that (2a), the type specifically identified as "middle", normally requires some form of adverbial modification to be grammatical: e.g. *this essay reads is unacceptable. This is not true of (2b) and (2c), where the verb can stand alone. It is also important to note that (2c) involves an alternation between a specifically causative transitive verb and an intransitive counterpart with a theme/patient subject (an "anticausative" or "unaccu-sative"): e.g. verbs like break, melt, boil, freeze, open, close, burn. These verbs normally involve a change of state (or sometimes location), so that the transitive verb means 'X causes Y to become Z', and the intransitive verb means 'Y becomes Z'. The three types in (2) have much in common, and are often treated together as phenomena characteristic of the "middle voice". Indeed, it can be difficult in specific cases to distinguish clearly among them, as (3) makes clear:
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
9
(3) This program - downloads quickly.
-	has downloaded (i.e. itself).
-	is downloading (i.e. automatically).
(?middle)
(?implicit reflexive) (?anticausative)
But there is one critical difference between the active-passive relation and the active-middle relation: where the former is fully productive (sentences with active transitive verbs almost always have passive counterparts regardless of their meaning), the latter is lexically highly restricted: only certain transitive verbs, or transitive verbs with certain types of meaning, allow for intransitive middle uses alongside their active transitive use, as the ungrammatical examples in (4) show:
(4) (a) *These fixtures destroy/design easily. impossible as "middles"
(b)	*Max hit/amused.	impossible as implicit reflexives
(c)	*My essay is writing/researching.	impossible as anticausatives
In other words, it makes little sense to view the active-middle relationship as a structural one comparable to the active-passive one when the existence and meaning of a middle counterpart is determined not by general syntactic properties but by specific lexical ones. If the middle voice can be characterised in a coherent way at all, it would clearly be better to try to capture its essence by means of lexical rules that affect only the relevant sub-classes of verbs.
Mutatis mutandis, the conglomeration of properties discussed for English middles typically recurs cross-linguistically, even though the resulting middle voice may be realised in different ways. Accordingly, reflexivity and a range of other non-active/non-passive functions have traditionally been grouped together as "middle" in modern grammars of Ancient Greek (most recently, van Emde Boas, Rijksbaron, Huitink, and de Bakker 2019, Chap. 35) (but see also the discussions in Allan 2003, 2014 and Kemmer 1993, and the articles in Fox and Hopper 1994, especially those by Bakker, Givon and Yang, and Kemmer). This approach contrasts strongly with the ancient grammatical tradition (Dionysius Thrax, Heliodorus, Apollonius Dyscolus, Choero-boscus), which struggled to find any obvious rationale for the middle voice and treated it largely as a dustbin for formal and functional oddities that were neither clearly active nor clearly passive (see Rijksbaron 2018 for a thorough treatment). One major purpose of this article, then, is to try to answer the question of which tradition is closer to the truth: did Ancient Greek really
2. VOICE(S) IN ANCIENT GREEK
10
Geoffrey Horrocks
have three voices, or just two, with some residual data that cannot readily be classified as either?
As we have seen, English uses active verb forms to express typical middle meanings, but other languages may use passive or reflexive forms in the same range of functions. It is very rare, however, for a middle voice to have a distinctive morphology of its own. Thus, as noted above, Ancient Greek middle and passive verb forms largely coincide, as the umbrella term "medio-passive" implies. But even where there is in theory a formal distinction, specifically in the aorist and the future, there is in practice a great deal of overlap, with no consistent correlation of form and function. For example, there are verbs with morphologically middle futures used in a passive sense (e.g., ti|iao|iai 'I shall be honoured', ^avou^ai 'I shall be shown'), and many verbs with morphologically passive aorists used in a middle sense alongside morphologically middle futures. Some common examples of the latter are given in (5):
(5) Middle verbs with the supposedly "passive" aorist -(6)r|v but a middle future: £PouAr|9r|v/pouAr|ao|iai 'wish/want, sSuvr|6r|v/Suvr|ao|iai 'be able', anr|AAd-yr|v/ anaAAd^o|iai 'depart, SKivr|0r|v/Kivr|ao|iai 'move, sAunr|0r|v/AuTCr|ao|iai 'grieve'
In the "modern" approach, the Greek medio-passive paradigm is typically seen as a polysemous marker of the "affectedness" of a subject, i.e. the agentive subject of an active verb is reinterpreted as receiving, either additionally (middle) or instead (passive), the "effect" of the verbal action as a theme or patient. A possible path for the semantic development of detransitivised medio-passive functions is given through the English examples in (6):
(6) (a)	Socrates beat his wife	agent only	active verb
(b)	Socrates dressed his son	agent only	active verb
(c)	Socrates got (himself) beaten	(indirect agent+) patient	passive verb
(d)	Socrates got (himself) dressed	direct agent+patient	middle verb
(e)	Socrates got beaten by his wife	patient only	passive verb
(f)	*Socrates got dressed by his wife	*patient + direct agent	*middle verb
(g)	Socrates was beaten by his wife	patient only	passive verb
(h)	Socrates was dressed by his wife	patient only	passive verb
(6a) and (6b) contain the active transitive verbs, beat and dress. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the English get + passive participle construction in (6c) and (6d) corresponds functionally to Greek medio-passive morphology, and that it contributes a nuance of "reflexivity" to actions proto-typically involving agentive subjects. This may be overtly expressed by means
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
11
of a reflexive pronoun, or be implicitly understood (as indicated by the brackets around himself). There is, however, a crucial difference between (6c) and (6d) determined by lexical semantics. Beat is an activity that normally involves distinct agents and patients (i.e., people don't usually beat themselves), while dress readily allows for agents to act on themselves (i.e., people do normally dress themselves). So (6c) with the reflexive pronoun means that Socrates did something that caused someone else to beat him, while (6d) with the reflexive pronoun simply means that Socrates dressed himself: i.e. the first involves indirect agency, the second direct agency, with respect to the relevant activity. Accordingly, (6c) allows for "a beater" to be specified, cf. (6e), while (6d) does not permit the specification of "a dresser" other than Socrates, cf. (6f). But when the reflexive pronoun is dropped in these examples, the meaning of (6c) changes while that of (6d) stays the same: specifically, the idea that Socrates was somehow indirectly responsible for his own beating disappears along with the reflexive pronoun, but the idea that he dressed himself remains. We may conclude, then, that (6c), with or without the reflexive pronoun, is passive, but that (6d), with or without the reflexive pronoun, is middle. In the case of verbs with meanings like "dress" a true passive reading is only possible when the sense of direct agency is unambigously removed through the substitution of be for get: cf. (6h), where a distinct agent has been added successfully. For verbs with meanings like 'beat', however, the two auxiliaries are more or less interchangeable in passive function, as shown by (6e) and (6g), though the former but not the latter suggests that Socrates was also something of an experiencer as well as a mere (inert) patient.
There are, however, other transitive verbs, including those with corresponding "core middle" or anticausative uses, that allow for both passive and middle readings of the get-construction. In this case, we either understand that the action was performed by an external agent on the patient subject, as in (7a) and (7c), or that it occurred more or less spontaneously, as a result of some inherent property of the patient subject and/or the ambient circumstances, as in (7b) and (7d):
(7) (a) This clay gets moulded quite easily (e.g., by a skilled potter) passive
(b)	This clay gets moulded quite easily (i.e., all by itself)	middle
(c)	The wax got melted (e.g., by the flames)	passive
(d)	The wax got melted (i.e., all by itself)	middle
Unlike in (6c) and (6d), therefore, the patient subject here is not, strictly speaking, also an agent, though it still plays a residually "active" kind of role because of its inherent properties, and reflexive pronouns may be marginally allowed (cf. this clay gets ?itself moulded quite easily etc.).
12
Geoffrey Horrocks
This kind of explanatory framework can be adapted and summarised for Ancient Greek as in (8):
(8)	(a) any active transitive verb may take medio-passive morphology in passive
function and co-occur optionally with an agentive phrase (uno + genitive etc.) (b) any active transitive verb with the appropriate lexical semantics may also take medio-passive morphology in a middle function, but cannot then co-occur with an agentive phrase
Thus implicit reflexives, for example, are largely restricted to a small number of verbs denoting activities involving personal grooming and training: e.g. Xouw/Xouo|ai 'wash', YU|ivdZw/YU|ivdZo|iai 'train, etc. However, the kind of function associated with the core middles in English is typically performed by Greek verb forms that are just as likely to be passive as middle in force, as in (9):
(9)	(a) This clay moulds easily.
(b) oOxo^ o nnA.0^ paSiwi; nXaTxexai (? = 'is moulded easily' (sc. by anyone at all))
And the relatively large class of verb forms corresponding to English anti-causatives may also be passive in sense, as in (10):
(10)	(a) The wax melted.
(b) o Kr|poi; £TdKr| (? = 'was melted' (sc. by unknown factors))
In other words, since both these classes can in principle co-occur with agentive or instrumental phrases, we have no way of knowing in the absence of native speakers whether there was also a distinct middle reading (= 'moulds easily/melted—all by itself') that rejected such an addition. The conclusion that these forms may well be universally passive is reinforced by the fact that there are good examples of active anticausatives, as the verbs of movement in (11):
(11)	sXauvw 'drive/proceed, op|i« '(cause to) start out', arouSw '(cause to) hasten, unayw 'withdraw/go'
Accordingly, this overall state of affairs potentially leaves the set of mediopassive verb forms with clear middle meanings perilously small. Traditional grammars boost the numbers, however, by including transitive middles. Unlike the data typically discussed as middles in the general linguistic context, large numbers of formally middle verbs in Greek are in fact transitive rather than intransitive, and have a specifically "middle" aorist in -(a)d|ir|v or -o|ir|v that is rarely, if ever, passive/intransitive in meaning. This is clearly a novel
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
13
type of middle in that all the examples discussed so far, in both English and Greek, have been intransitive, and as such closer to passives than to active transitives. We might speculate, faute de mieux, that the more common transitive type of middle may have been formed prehistorically by analogy with the type of middle exemplified by verbs of personal grooming and training such as Xouw/Xouo|ai, "yu|vdZw/"yu|vdZo|ai, etc. Consider (12):
(12)	(a) Xouw £|iauxov : Xouo|iai 'I wash myself'
subject = agent+patient (b) noiu Ti £|iauT« : > noiou|iai Ti 'I make something for myself'
subject = agent+beneficiary
This analogy would have been based on the assumption that an active verb co-occurring with an overt reflexive pronoun could be replaced by a middle verb form with reflexive meaning, whether the reflexive in question was a direct object or an indirect object. We would therefore end up with implicit direct reflexives expressed by intransitive middles, as in (12a), and a new class of of implicit indirect reflexives expressed by transitive middles, as in (12b).
Since the set of active transitive verbs that can in principle co-occur with a dative object or adjunct (denoting a recipient, an experiencer, a beneficiary, etc.) is quite large, the set of associated transitive middles should therefore be correspondingly large, at least in theory. Much is made of this in modern grammars and lexica, where the transitive middle is typically said to denote an action that an agent performs "for himself/herself/itself", though sometimes vaguer versions of indirect reflexivity are also invoked. The only problem with this statement is that it simply is not true. Note first of all that the only example of the construction that is ever discussed in these terms in the ancient grammatical tradition (scholion on Heliodorus 1.3.246.5 [= part 1, volume 3, page 246, line 5 in Grammatici Graeci, edited by Uhlig-Schneider-Hilgard]) is precisely the one in (12b), albeit presented there in the aorist. If things were really so clear and simple, this would surely have been developed as the basis for a reasoned theory of the transitive middle. The fact that it was not speaks volumes. In reality, the supposedly straightforward indirect-reflexive sense of a transitive middle is rare, being restricted to a relatively small set of semanti-cally linked verbs, including those in (13):
(13)	noi«/noiou|iai 'make', napaCTKeudZ«/napapaCTKeudZo|ai 'prepare', TCapex«/napexo|iai 'provide'
This limitation is not difficult to explain. Since people frequently and naturally "make", "prepare" or "provide" things for themselves, the lexical
14
Geoffrey Horrocks
meaning of these verbs strongly invites a direct agent reading of the subject of their middle forms, e.g. napapaaK£ud(o|ai = 'get something prepared (for one's own benefit/use)' etc. As we saw above in (6d), this particular interpretation of the subject is a prerequisite for the possibility of a true reflexive reading of the get-paraphrase. If instead the agent is understood to be acting indirectly, as was the case in (6c), the possibility of reflexivity is eliminated and the reading is a simple causative one, cf. "Socrates got his wife beaten" (= 'caused his wife to be beaten'). But even when a subject can be understood as a direct agent, a transitive middle with an implicitly reflexive reading is not routinely permitted unless the activity in question is also inherently or prototypically associated with self-interest. The sentence in (14) does not therefore reflect a regular "middle" use of T|Ko|ai:
(14)	*o ZuKpaxn^ xr|K£Tai tov Kr|pov 'Socrates gets the wax melted (for himself).'
Since such middles would naturally have had simple causative readings (= 'caused the wax to melt' etc.) that were virtually synonymous with those of their active equivalents, there would have been a strong motive either to discard them as redundant or to reinvent and revalidate them by assigning them distinctive meanings of their own. In this connection, consider the typical examples in (15):
(15)	alp« 'take'/a[pou|iai 'choose, anoSiS«|ii 'give back7anoSiSo|iai 'sell',
Ypa^u 'write'/ypa^o^ai 'indict', nei0u 'persuade'/nei6o|ai 'obey', etc.
By contrast, transitive middles that were not assigned such "developed" meanings tended simply to drop out of use over time.
The relative infrequency of transitive middles with indirect reflexive readings (pace the standard grammars and lexica) explains why learners struggle to make sense of the vast majority of the middles they encounter in texts that obviously do not conform to the supposedly regular rule of interpretation. Equally, when learners look up a given transitive verb in a lexicon, they typically find that its middle in fact has a special sense, one that can only be connected with the supposedly "regular" indirect-reflexive sense via some tortuous special pleading of the type that tries to persuade us that "choose" is a semi-paraphrase of "take for oneself" etc. Pretending that these are somehow the straightforward middles of the corresponding actives in anything other than form is a disservice to students. They are clearly lexicalised verbs in their own right, with unpredi-cable meanings, and as such they deserve entries of their own in the lexicon.
The problems of the supposed "middle voice" do not end here, however. There are, for example, very large numbers of "middle only" (or deponent)
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
15
verbs that by definition do not enter into any voice alternation at all, cf. a few common examples in (16):
(16)	PoúAo|iai 'wish', -yryvo|iai 'become', o'fo|iai 'think', etc.
Nor should we forget the considerable numbers of paradigmatically "odd" middle forms, such as the inexplicable middle futures to otherwise normal active verbs, as in (17):
(17)	áKoú«/áKoúao|iai 'hear, |iav0áv«/|ia6|ao|iai 'learn, ndaxw/neiao|ai 'suffer', etc.
At this point, we might very reasonably ask whether there really is a middle voice in Greek at all, given that it appears to be represented by a handful of lexically restricted implicit reflexives and a very large collection of oddities (viz. deponent verbs, middles with special meanings, and odd middle tenses for otherwise active verbs). In other words, it may be that the ancient grammarians basically got the middle right, at least from the general perspective that it cannot be reduced to any clear and simple definition and seems not to have any systematic relationship with the active or passive voices. On the face of it, then, it looks as if modern efforts to establish the credentials of the middle as a bona fide third voice are somewhat misconceived. My suspicion is that morphology, not for the first time, has taken precedence over syntax and semantics in the sense that the existence of marginally distinct middle morphology has been taken, incorrectly, to imply the existence of a functionally distinct middle voice (or diathesis).
3. VOICES IN PLATO REPUBLIC
The discussion above has involved a critical assessment of the standard proposition that a key property of the active-middle alternation is the regular addition of a secondary semantic role (patient or beneficiary) to an active agent, and that this "reflexivity" is marked by middle morphology. But this supposedly regular alternation appears to be far from regular in our corpus of Greek texts, where most middle forms are either "deponent" verbs with no active counterparts or show "irregular", i.e. semantically developed meanings vis-à-vis their corresponding actives (as suggested, the latter might very reasonably be added to the list of deponents as middle-only verbs in their own right).
So far, however, the argument has been based largely on theoretical considerations and assertions made without detailed numbers to support them.
16
Geoffrey Horrocks
To remedy this deficiency, book I of Plato's Republic was chosen as a reasonably "natural" example of dialogue among male members of the Athenian elite in the early 4th century BCE. First, every medio-passive verb form was collected (479 attested tokens) and assigned to the relevant lexical entry (167 different verbs, with an average frequency of 2.87, and with most falling in the range 1-5). Then the verbs were classified by type/function, with results as tabulated in (18):
(18) Verbs with middle-passive forms in the corpus
(a)	V with middle-passive morphology	167 of which:
(b)	V with middle-passive forms only (deponents-1)	75 V with "developed" middle sense (deponents-2)	40
(c)	V with passive sense (alternation ~ active)	40
(d)	V with a "regular" middle sense (alternation ~ active)	12
In (18a) we have the total number of verbs with medio-passive forms; in (b) the number of middle-only/deponent verbs and the number of verbs with middle forms that have semantically developed senses (which are in effect deponents too, as noted); in (c) the number of verbs that were clearly used as passives in alternation with actives; and in (d), the number of verbs that were used as middles in alternation with actives. (When a verb had the potential to be involved in a voice alternation that happened not to be attested in Republic 1, this was checked first in the Platonic corpus and then more widely, if necessary).
Of just 52 verbs that could in principle be involved in a regular voice alternation, 40 were deemed to be passive, and just 12 middle. Those middles with active equivalents of extremely rare or very late attestation (e.g., causative ano"y£uw beside ano"ysuo^ai, Pid(w beside PidZo^ai, evavtiw beside evavtiou^ai) were discounted.
Deponents proved to be by far the largest group (115 of 167 verbs). Importantly, some examples that might have in principle been taken as "regular" middles with active counterparts turned out to have middle forms that were consistently used with more abstract complements than their active counterparts and so showed a corresponding shift of meaning, however slight: e.g. dp^otto^ai 'tune (an instrument etc.)' vs. active 'fit/join', £vSsiKvu(o)^ai 'reveal (an opinion)' vs. active 'point out', npotiGs^ai 'propose (a theory)' vs. active 'place before/expose', ^statiGs^ai 'redefine (a word/concept)' vs. active 'place among/differently', SiopiZsaGai 'define (a word/concept)' vs. active 'divide/separate'. These were therefore counted as deponents. We might usefully compare here the famous example (19) from the beginning of the Republic:
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
17
(19)	.. .Kai |iou oniaGev o nai^ Xap6|ievoc xou l|iaxiou...
.and the slave boy, catching hold of my coat from behind.
Republic 327b
In the absence of any obvious reflexivity or self-interest, it seems that Plato here is using the middle of Xa|Pavw in the developed sense of 'grasp/take hold of, a usage that is in fact consistent throughout the corpus. It was perhaps initially modelled on anto|ai etc., involving contact with a part rather than seizure of the whole and therefore a genitive complement. Taken all together, this kind of evidence amply confirms the earlier suggestion that, by Plato's time, many middle paradigms, following a variety of models of development, had broken free from their active counterparts and become autonomous deponents with specialised meanings of their own.
There was also good evidence in the corpus that verbs with middle-only forms were still being created in Classical Greek, and that this tended to happen precisely when no clear semantic distinction between the active and middle had evolved. Consider the examples in (20):
(20)	(a) .. .aXXai; noXeu; snixeipeiv 8ouXoug8ai aSiK«^ ...
.to try to enslave other cities unjustly.
Republic 351b
(b) .. nepaiK^ PaaiXeia.xd^ sv xg r|neip« noXeu; e8ouX^ge .the Persian kingdom.. .enslaved the cities on the continent.
Thucydides 1.17.1
Any substantive difference between (20a) and (20b) is hard to detect, and any would-be explanatory references to reflexivity are not, in my view, convincing here. In Thucydides' time SouXw and SouXou|iai co-existed in free variation, but SouXou|iai turns out to be the sole survivor in Plato, and is consistently used as a middle-only verb by other authors of his period too, e.g. Demosthenes. A similar development is attested for the semantically related avSpanoSiio|iai. These data suggest that if the middle of a given verb failed to develop a distinctive meaning, one set of competing forms would eventually be dropped. A priori, we would expect this process to have favoured the active in most cases, and that is indeed generally the case. The opposite choice in the case of verbs of "enslavement" (and in other cases where the middle survives and it is the active that is dropped) presumably lies in the notion of advantage to the agent that is inherent in certain activities.
Turning now to the core cases of verbs with supposedly "regular" middles (just 12 out of 167 in the table in (18)), most seemed to be virtually
18
Geoffrey Horrocks
synonymous with their corresponding actives, with little suggestion of any "reflexivity" as a basis for distinguishing them. One might, of course, try to insist on a "regular" middle meaning simply because the grammars tell us it should be there, but this approach was not strongly supported by the contexts involved. Consider the representative examples given in (21)-(23), which are discussed individually below:
(21)	(a) . ..0| xu Zepi^iu \oi8opou|ievu Kai Ai-yovxi oti...
(Themistocles) who, when a man from Seriphus was reviling him and telling him that ...
Republic 329e
(b) oukouv. . ,a'a8av6|ie8a.. .Tiva.. AoiSopouvTa Te auTov...; do we not. observe a man.. .reviling himself.?
Republic 440b
Can we honestly see the voice difference here as anything other than a matter of free choice? (Note too that reflexive meaning is carried by the active verb and an overt reflexive pronoun). There were several similar cases, including the commonly attested free variation between aKonw/aKonou^at.
Again, since something is provided for others rather than for the subject in both the examples in (22), any difference between them once more seems minimal:
(22)	(a) oukouv Kai «^eAiav £Kaarr| toutuv 'Siav Tiva ^|iiv napexeTai.;
and does not each of these (sc. arts) also provide us with a benefit that is peculiar to itself.?
Republic 346a
(b) .. .touto elvai, o naatv EKeivoi; T^v Suva|iiv napeaxev waTe syyeveaGai... .this (sc. justice) is .what provided all those with the capacity to come into being.
Republic 433b
It may perhaps be that the middle emphasises provision as an inherent property of the provider or something similar (itself, in any case, an extended version of the reflexive theory), but there is, I think, a strong feeling of clutching at straws in trying to insist on any truly significant difference between this pair of sentences.
The same is evidently true of the pair in (23):
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
19
Tt8exat Se -ye xou^ vo^ou^ eKaaxr| ^ apx^ npo^ to autfl au^^epov and each (form of) goverment enacts the laws with a view to its own advantage
Republic 338e
ouKouv snixeipouvxe^ vo^ou^ xt8evat xou^ |ev op0«^ xt8eaatv, xou^ Se xiva^ ouk op0«^;
in their attempts to enact laws do they (sc. rulers) not then enact some rightly and others not rightly?
Republic 339c
Specifically we might well ask why the first includes an overt expression of self-interest if the middle verb conveys this idea already? While it is perhaps still conceivable that the middle redundantly reinforces npoq to autfl au^^spov, it is hard once again to escape a feeling of special pleading if this particular path is followed.
It seems, then, that cases of virtually free variation are more common than is routinely acknowledged. At the same time, unequivocal cases of the supposedly prototypical middle use were actually very hard to find. The two best of the possible examples are those given in (24) and (25), where there does indeed seem to be a contrast involving the presence versus the absence of re-flexivity (though we should also compare (25) with (22) before jumping to this conclusion!):
(24)	(a) .. .ipavepui; npaxx6||evot xfi; apxf<; eveKa |iia9ov...
.. .exacting pay openly for themselves in return for their service of rule
Republic 347b
(b) .. .npartOvTOv Se o'l xa|iai xouxoiv xoiv 6eoiv...
.and the treasurers of these deities (sc. Hera and Zeus) shall exact (sc. the sum for the temple).
Laws774d
(25)	(a) Kai |i^v Kai op-yava -ye ex«v napexea8ai uno nevia^...
and again, if from poverty he cannot provide himself with tools.
Republic 421d
(b) aAAa |ioi na\ai TCpa-y|iaxa napexet.
but he has been creating issues for me for a long time
Phaedo 56e
(23) (a)
(b)
20
Geoffrey Horrocks
Nonetheless, such examples are exceedingly rare, not only in Plato but generally in Ancient Greek, and one might come closer to the truth, synchron-ically speaking, if one suggested that any implicit reflexivity in fact represents a very particular version of the familiar semantic specialisation process that was restricted to the middles of a small number of verbs with the right sort of meaning, as was suggested earlier (SiSaaKo^ai might be another), where self-interest or benefit to the subject is somehow a natural or inherent property of the activities in question.
4. CONCLUSION
The close analysis of a hopefully representative sample of Athenian prose tends strongly to confirm the preliminary conclusion that the alleged basis for an active-middle contrast, one that is routinely presented as the norm, is in fact anything but normal. It is in fact emphatically not the case that supposedly "regular" middles of potentially suitable verbs can be used productively to express either direct or indirect reflexivity. On the contrary, the few implicitly reflexive middles in the corpus studied here look more like one more case of semantic specialisation conditioned by lexical meaning. In any case, the overwhelming majority of the verbs with both active and medio-passive paradigms have clearly developed a sufficient degree of lexical and semantic dis-tinctiveness between their active and middle forms for the latter to be treated uncontroversially as autonomous deponent verbs.
Admittedly, this conclusion is based on the analysis of a small corpus taken from the work of only one author, and more research is obviously needed if the case for abandoning the middle as a true third voice is to be further substantiated. But it would be surprising if the preliminary indications from Republic I turned out to be freakishly misleading, and for now a strong prima facie case has been made that the putative middle voice in Ancient Greek really is a collection of disiecta membra, perhaps comprising some indirect reflections of a different kind of voice system originating in the prehistoric past. By the time Greek is first attested this earlier system had already been reinterpreted as a regular active-passive system, and the intractable residue of "middle" forms was either in the process of being lexicalised or of being progressively abandoned.
Geoffrey Horrocks Cambridge University gch1000@cam.ac.uk
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J. 2003. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Allan, Rutger J. 2006. "Sophocles' Voice: Active, Middle and Passive in the Language of Sophocles." In Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects of Diction, Syntax and Pragmatics, edited by Irene J. F. de Jong and Albert Rijksbaron, 111-126. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Allan, Rutger J. 2014. "Voice." In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics Online, edited by Georgios K. Giannakis. Leiden and Boston: Brill. http://dx.doi. org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_COM_00000373.
Bakker, Egbert J. 1994. "Voice, Aspect and Aktionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greek." In Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper, eds., 23-47.
Barber, Elizabeth J. W. 1975. "Voice - Beyond the Passive." In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, edited by Cathy Cogen, Henry Thompson, Graham Thurgood, Kenneth Whistler, and James Wright, 16-24. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1927. "Le rôle des désinences moyennes en grec ancien." Revue de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire anciennes 5:153-165.
Conti, Luz. 2006. "Untersuchung der sogenannten inhärent reziproken Verben im Altgriechischen: Semantische und syntaktische Eigenschaften." Historische Sprachforschung 119:168-185.
Duhoux, Yves. 2000. Le verbe grec ancien: éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. Deuxième édition, revue et augmentée. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Fox, Barbara A., and Paul J. Hopper, eds. 1994. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garcia Gual, Carlos. 1970. El sistema diatético en el verbo griego. Madrid: Instituto Antonio de Nebrija.
Gildersleeve, Basil L. 1900-1911. Syntax of Classical Greek: From Homer to Demosthenes. 2 vols. New York: American Book Company.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kühner, Raphael, and Bernhard Gerth. 1889-1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Teil, Satzlehre. 2 vols. Hannover: Hahnsche Hofbuchhandlung.
Prévot, André. 1935. L'aoriste grec en -then. Paris: Champion.
Risselada, Rodie. 1987. "Voice in Ancient Greek: Reflexives and Passives." In Ins and Outs of the Predication, edited by Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens, 123-136. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2006. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. 3rd edition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2018. "The Treatment of the Greek Middle Voice by the Ancient Grammarians." In Albert Rijksbaron, Form and Function in Greek Grammar: Linguistic Contributions to the Study of Greek Literature, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 30, edited by Rutger Allan, Evert van Emde Boas, and Luuk Huitink, 357-369. Leiden: Brill.
Ruipérez, Martin S. 1988. "Sur la structure des oppositions de voix dans le verbe grec." In In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner's
22
Geoffrey Horrocks
'Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe', edited by Albert Rijksbaron, Hotze A. Mulder, and Gerry C. Wakker, 255-264. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Schwyzer, Eduard, and Albert Debrunner. 1959. Griechische Grammatik. 2 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. van Emde Boas, Evert, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. 2019. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willi, Andreas. 2018. Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
ABSTRACT
It has long been taken for granted in reference works, grammars and elementary introductions that Ancient Greek had three grammatical voices, active, passive and middle. Yet scholars have always had great difficulty in characterising the middle voice in a straightforward and convincing way, and language learners are often perplexed to find that most of the middles they find in texts fail to exemplify the function, usually involving some notion of self interest, that is typically ascribed to this voice. This article therefore re-examines the Ancient Greek middle, both through the lens of a general survey of "middle voice" functions across languages, and through the analysis of all the medio-passive verb forms attested in Book 1 of Plato's Republic.
The principal observations are that Ancient Greek middles do not represent a regular pattern of usage either from a typological point of view or as employed specifically in Republic 1 (the database is in fact partly extended to other works). Accordingly, the main conclusion is that the Ancient Greek middle is not a grammatical voice sensu stricto, i.e. a regular syntactic alternation applying to all verbs with a given set of properties and expressed by a regular morphological form with a predictable semantic function. Rather, it appears to be a convenient collective name for a large set of "autonomous" verb forms that are either clearly deponent (i.e., have no active counterparts) or that have been lexi-calised in a specialised meaning vis-à-vis their supposed active counterparts (i.e., are also deponents in practice, despite appearances). In all probability, therefore, medio-passive morphology, whatever it once represented in terms of function, was recharacterised pre-historically as "passive" morphology, leaving a residue of verbs exhibiting forms with nonpassive functions. Presumably, these survived as "middles" only because they had no active counterparts or had been assigned innovative meanings that distinguished them from any formally related actives.
Keywords: active voice, middle voice, passive voice, deponent verb, semantic specialisation
What's in the Middle? Two Voices or Three in Ancient Greek?
23
POVZETEK
Kaj je na sredini? Dva ali trije načini v stari grščini?
Referenčna dela, slovnice in najelementarnejši jezikovni uvodi po tradiciji kot samo po sebi umevno jemljejo dejstvo, da je imela stara grščina tri načine, aktiv, pasiv in medij (ali »srednjik«). A filologi se vsakič znova znajdejo v hudi zadregi, ko je treba medij jasno in prepričljivo opredeliti, medtem ko študentje stare grščine pogosto presenečeni opazijo, da večina oblik medija v izvirnih besedilih ne ustreza vlogi, ki se mu običajno pripisuje in za katero naj bi bila značilna določena mera subjektovega osebnega interesa. Pričujoči prispevek torej na novo odpira vprašanje starogrškega medija, in sicer z vidika tipološkega pregleda »medijalnih« funkcij, vključuje pa tudi analizo mediopasnih glagolskih oblik, izpričanih v 1. knjigi Platonove Države.
Poglavitne ugotovitve kažejo, da niti v tipološkem smislu niti z vidika 1. knjige Platonove Države (korpus je v resnici nekoliko širši in vsebuje tudi odlomke drugih del) raba medija ne sledi jasnemu vzorcu. Iz tega izhaja najpomembnejši zaključek prispevka, da namreč starogrški medij ni glagolski način v pravem pomenu besede in da torej ne moremo govoriti o pravilni skladenjski tvorbi, ki bi se uporabljala v primeru vseh glagolskih oblik z določenimi lastnostmi in se izražala s pravilnimi oblikoslovnimi sredstvi s predvidljivo semantično funkcijo. Nasprotno, izkaže se, da gre za prikladno kolektivno ime za veliko skupino »avtonomnih« glagolskih oblik, ki so bodisi očitno deponentne (t.j. nimajo aktivnih ustreznic) ali pa so bile, v nasprotju s hipotetičnimi aktivnimi ustreznicami, leksikalizirane za izražanje specializiranih pomenov. Po vsej verjetnosti se je torej mediopasivno oblikoslovje, četudi je morda nekoč predstavljalo posebno funkcijo, v predzgodovinski dobi rein-terpretiralo kot »pasivno«, pri čemer so se kot okameneli ostanki ohranile glagolske oblike z nepasivnimi funkcijami. Domnevati smemo, da se so slednje ohranile kot »medijalne« zgolj zato, ker niso imele aktivnih vzporednic ali ker so pridobile drugotne pomene, po katerih so se razlikovale od aktivnih, v formalnem pogledu z njimi povezanih oblik.
Ključne besede: aktiv, medij, pasiv, deponentnik, pomenska specializacija
DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.4312/keria.22.2.25-55
Mark Janse
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek1
"Sex is the most important referential feature reflected in gender assignment"
(Luraghi 2013)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Greek word "ysvo; may refer to 'sex' as well as 'gender'. The concept of grammatical gender is obviously connected with the idea of biological sex, as emerges from the use of the adjectives appr|v 'male' and 0r|Xu; 'female' to distinguish masculine and feminine nouns. According to Aristotle, it was Protagoras who introduced the concept of grammatical gender:
(1) npœxayopac; ta ysvr| tô>v ôvo^àxœv ôifipei, âppeva Kai G^Aea Kai OKev^-
Protagoras distinguished the classes of nouns, males and females and things.
(Arist., Rhet. 1407b)
I prefer to translate appsva Kai 0r|Aia here as 'male and female', i.e. male and female beings, rather than 'masculine and feminine' (sc. noun classes), because of their juxtaposition with aKsur| 'things'.2 The choice of terminology
1	Research for this paper was done while the author was an Associate of Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies in 2019. A preliminary version was presented at the Round Table on "Greek Language and Grammatical Gender" at Cankarjev dom in Ljubljana (January 14, 2020). The author wishes to thank the organizers, Jerneja Kavčič and Christina Manouilidou, for their invitation and hospitality.
2	Cf. Corbeil (2008: 80); Wartelle (1982: 66) translates appr|v as 'mâle' in reference to humans, i.e. children (Rhet. 1361a6), but as 'masculin' in reference to noun classes (Rhet. 1407b6-8), 0r|Xi3c; as
26
Mark Janse
suggests a division between animate beings, subdivided into male and female, on the one hand, and inanimate objects on the other.3 Aristotle himself seems to prefer the term xa ^sta^u 'the in-between' (Poet. 1458a).4
Dionysius Thrax is the first grammarian we know of to have used the terminology which has become accepted in the Greek and Roman grammatical tradition:
(2)	ysvr| |iev ouv e'iai xpia- dpaeviKov, 0nA«K6v, ovSeTEpov
There are in fact three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. (GG 1.1.24)
Dionysius adds that others distinguish two additional genders: koivov re kai ehikoivov 'common and epicene' (GG 1.125).5 Both can be used to refer to male as well as female beings, but whereas common nouns distinguish grammatical gender by agreement, epicene nouns do not. Examples of common nouns given by Dionysius include o ~ ^ inno; 'horse ~ mare' and o ~ ^ kuwv 'dog ~ bitch'; examples of epicene nouns are restricted to animals and include ^ XsXi5wv 'swallow' [m/f] and o astoq 'eagle' [m/f] (GG 1.125).
2. EPICENE NOUNS
Aesop's fables unsurprisingly abound with such epicene nouns. The fable of the eagle and the fox, for instance, seems to be about two female animals and their young, but o astoq being an epicine masculine noun (and one of the examples cited by Dionysius Thrax) as opposed to ^	which is an epi-
cine feminine noun, both trigger obligatory grammatical agreement patterns on pronouns and participles which have no relation with their biological sex:
(3)	dero^ Kai	^lAiav npo; aAAiAouc; noinoa^evoi n\r|aiov ¿auxu>v o'lKeiv 5ieyvo>aav ... Kai o ^ev dva^ai; eni ti nepi|ir|Kec; SsvSpov eveoxxonoiriaaTo-^ 5e eiae\0ouaa e'i; xov unoKei^evov 9a|ivov sxsKev.
An eagle [m] and a fox [f] who had befriended [m] each other decided to live close to each other ... and so the former [m] went up [m] a very high tree to hatch, whereas the latter [f] went inside [f] the underlying bush to give birth.
(Aesop. 1 Hausrath-Hunger)
'féminin, de sexe ou de genre féminin' (1982: 193), in reference to the same passages, and aKeûo; as 'mot (nom, adjectif, pronom) neutre' (1982: 388).
3	Cf. Schmidhauser (2010: 501), Novokhatko (2020: 107).
4	Singular tô ^era^û (Arist., Poet. 166b; Soph. el. 173b).
5	Dionysius' wording evioi ôe npoariOéam toutou; âtta ôûo 'but some add to these two others' (GG 1.1.24) indicates that he was not the inventor of the traditional terminology.
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
27
The fable of the tortoise and the eagle has survived in different versions, two of which are worthwhile comparing (Aesop. 259 Hausrath-Hunger):
(4a) xe^vn Qeaoa^evn asxov nsxo|isvov ensGu^n^s Kai avrr^ nexsaGai A tortoise [f] who saw [f] an eagle fly wished to fly herself [f].
(4b) \e\u<; apprfv 0£aaa^£vo<; asxov ensGu^n^s Kai avrroi; nsxaaGrjvai
A male [m] tortoise [f] who saw [m] an eagle wished to fly himself [m].
The sex of the eagle is undetermined in both versions, astoq being an epi-cine masculine noun (and one of the examples cited by Dionysius Thrax) and seemingly irrelevant for the purpose of the fable. The two words for 'tortoise', ^ XeXwvr| and ^	are both epicine feminine nouns and both are used
alternately in the Homeric hymn to Mercurius to refer to the same mountain tortoise: xsXuq opsai (wouaa 'a tortoise [f] who is living [f] in the mountains' (h.Merc. 33), opsaKwoio xsA.wvrq 'of the mountain-dwelling [m/f] tortoise [f]' (h.Merc. 44). The sex of the tortoise in the first version of the fable (4a) is therefore undetermined and, again, seemingly irrelevant. The agreement of the participle Gsaaa^svr and the pronoun aut| with xs^vr is, in other words, obligatory and purely grammatical. In the second version, however, the turtle is overtly marked as male by the agreement of the participle Gsaaa^svoq and the pronoun autoq with x^uq, which would have been ungrammatical, had it not been for the added adjective app|v. One can only guess at the reason(s) why the author of this version thought it necessary to explicitly present the tortoise as a male—because he wants to "fly like an eagle" out of male vanity, male arrogance, male hybris or perhaps all of the above?
3. NATURAL GENDER AND DECLENSION
In a well-known scene from Aristophanes' Clouds, Socrates is presented as having even more original, albeit quite radical solutions to the problem of common nouns in his education of Strepsiades on the topic of gender assignment and gender marking (Nub. 658-93).6 Socrates is playing on the ambiguity on the ambiguity of the adjective app|v, when he asks Strepsiades which four-legged animals are properly male / masculine (twv tstpanoSwv art'
6 As for the source for the scene, Wackernagel (1928: 4), Corbeil (2008: 80) and Willi (2003: 99)
acknowledge Protagoras, Sommerstein (1982: 196) and Henderson (1998: 97s9) Prodicus. Dover mentions Protagoras in connection with "the genders of nouns", but refers to Prodicus in connection with the use of öpOöc; at Nub. 659 (1968: 182). Willi rightly stresses the "composite picture" of the Aristophanic Socrates in Clouds "as a result of much comic freedom" (2003: 116; cf. Langslow's note on Wackernagel's current identification of Socrates with Protagoras [2009: 4027]).
28
Mark Janse
eattv opGw; appsva, Nub. 659). Strepsiades, of course, immediately starts enumerating what he thinks are "properly male" animals: Kpio; 'ram', Tpdyo; 'billygoat', Taupo; 'bull', kuwv 'dog, aXsKTpuwv 'fowl' (Nub. 661). Whereas the first three are prototypical second-declension nouns which unquestionably refer to male animals, the last two are in fact common nouns which may refer to males and females alike: kuwv is one of the examples cited by Dionysius Thrax (cf. supra), but Socrates instead focuses on aXsKTpuwv:7
(5) opac; a naaxeic;; t^v te G^Aeiav KaXeic; | aXeKTpuova Kara xavxo Kai tov appeva
You see what is wrong with you? You use aXeKTpuurv [m/f] to refer to the female [f] and the male [m] alike. (Ar., Nub. 662-3)
To resolve the referential or, if you like, sexual ambiguity of the word, Socrates offers a radical solution to the problem (of which only he is apparently aware) and on the spot creates the feminine aXsKTpuaiva 'hen, which he contrasts with the poetic masculine aXsKTwp 'cock' (Nub. 666) to avoid the epicene aXsKTpuwv. The otherwise unattested neologism aXsKTpuatva is obviously formed on the analogy of other pairs referring to opposite sexes in the animal kingdom such as Xswv 'lion' ~ Xsatva 'lioness', SpaKwv 'snake' ~ SpaKaiva 'she-snake', xuko; 'wolf' ~ XuKaiva 'she-wolf', CTKuXa^ 'dog' ~ CTKuXaKaiva 'bitch'.8 By doing so, the Aristophanic Socrates presents himself as a proponent of the principle that nouns referring to animate beings belonging to different sexes ought to be differentiated by different endings. Aristophanes, to be sure, used aXsKTpuwv as a "properly epicene" noun according to Athenaeus (9.374c), who quotes him to illustrate the fact that in fifth-century Attic this was common usage:9
(6a) wov lisyiCTTov tstoksv, w; aXsKtpuwv
She's laid a huge egg, like a cock. (Ar., fr. 193)
(6b) noWai twv d\EKTpuov«v ^ia unr|vs|iia TiKTouCTiv ¿a noXXaKi;
It happens that many [f] cocks [m/f] by necessity lay wind-eggs. (Ar., fr. 194)
7	Ignoring the fact that fowls are not quadrupeds, as Wackernagel wittingly remarks (1928: 1).
8	On the productivity and extension of the suffix see Chantraine: "le suffixe -aiva a pris en grec un développement nouveau, il a servi à désigner des animaux, surtout des animaux méprisés" (1933: 107). The oldest examples of the formation include Seanoiva 'mistress' ~ SeanoTr|c; 'master' (etymologically of a 'house') and Oeaiva in the formulaic verse kékXuté |ioi navre; te 0eoi nâaai te Oeaivai 'hear me, all gods and all goddesses' (Il. 19.101, Od. 8.5) and variations thereupon (Il. 8.20, Od. 8.341).
9	tov S ' àXeKTpuova ... 01 àp^aioi Kai 0r|XuKÔc; eipr|Kam 'the ancients used the word aXeKTpuwv also to refer to the hen' (Athen. 9.373e).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
29
The translation of (6a) and (6b) is Henderson's, who undoubtedly intended to emphasize Socrates' anopia with the common noun aXeKTpuwv, but the agreement of noXXai in (6b) leaves no doubt about the sex of the fowl (as if laying eggs was not enough to convince anyone).10
The principle of correspondence between sex and gender is even more hilariously illustrated with Socrates' second rebuke of Strepsiades' lack of gender awareness. When the latter (correctly) uses the feminine article with a second-declension noun, i.c. t^v KapSonov 'the trough' (Nub. 669), the former retorts that by doing so he is 'turning a feminine into a masculine noun' (appeva KaXei; 0|Xeiav oiaav, Nub. 671). When Strepsiades asks him how on earth he managed to do that, Socrates replies: wanep "ye Kai KXewvu^ov 'well, obviously, just like Cleonymus' (Nub. 673a), adding: tautov Suvatai aoi KapSono; KXewvu^w 'clearly, KapSono; can be the same to you as KXewvu^o;' (Nub. 674). This provokes an obscene wordplay on the part of Strepsiades (Janse forthcoming a), who asks how he should say the word correctly. Socrates' answer is again mind-boggling:
(7)	x^v Kap5onr|v, wanep KaXei; x^v Zwaxpaxn
Kap5onr| [f], just as you say Zwaxpaxr| [f]. (Ar., Nub. 678)
This is a remarkable innovation: instead of replacing the feminine article with its masculine equivalent (tov KapSonov), Socrates moves the noun to the first declension (t^v KapSon^v) to align the grammatical gender of the noun, indicated by the agreement of the article, with its dedicated inflectional class. Strepsiades is again unable to distinguish biological sex from grammatical gender and thus fails to understand why a trough should be 'female' (t^v KapSon^v 0|Xeiav; Nub. 679a). When Socrates reassures him that he has it right now (op0w; "yap Xeyei;; 679b), Strepsiades confidently repeats what he thinks he has just learned:11
(8)	¿Ksivo Suva|iai- KapSonn, KXewvu^n
That I can handle: KapSonr| [f], KXea>vu|ir| [f]. (Ar., Nub. 680)
The point of Socrates' digression is that nouns belonging to the second declension should be masculine and those belonging to the first declension
10	Strepsiades, to be sure, learned his lesson well when he enlightens Phidippides not to use the epicene noun aXecpuwv to refer to both sexes, but to call the masculine fowl aXeicrap and the feminine aXeKTpuaiva (850-1).
11	Strepsiades later uses his newly acquired knowledge to put off his first creditor: ouk av anoSoir|v ouS' av o|oX6v ouSevi | oari; KaXeaeie KapSonov T^v KapSon^v 'I wouldn't repay not even an obol to anyone | who calls the trough KapSono;' (Nub. 1250-1).
30
Mark Janse
feminine—whether naturally (^uasi), conventionally (Gsasi), or both.12 Socrates clearly treats ZwaTpaTr| as a feminine noun referring to a female person,13 but Strepsiades apparently understands ZwaTpaTr| as a feminine noun referring to an effeminate male, hence his reassignment of K\swvu|ioq to the first declension.14 Apart from male-female doublets in personal names belonging to the second and first declension respectively, there are of course many doublets in nouns, e.g. Kopoq 'boy' ~ Kopr| 'girl', SouXoq 'slave' [m] ~ Sou\r| 'slave' [f], Gsoq 'god' ~ Gsa 'goddess', etc.-not to mention the very common first and second-declension adjectives like KaXoq ~ KaX|.
It seems therefore quite reasonable for Socrates to fix, so to speak, the oddity of second-declension nouns triggering grammatical agremeent patterns on articles and adjectives usually reserved for first-declension nouns. As a matter of fact, many grammatically feminine second-declension nouns have been "repaired" in the course of time, either by imposing masculine agreement patterns on them or by moving them to the first declension (Jannaris 1897: 111-2). A well-known example, discussed by Wackernagel (1928: 3) in terms of analogy and more recently by Coker (2009: 40-2) in terms of category formation, is ^ aa^oXoq 'soot' [f], which appears as ^ aa^oXn in Semonides (fr. 7.61 West) but as o aa^oXoq in Hipponax (fr. 138 West) according to Phryni-chus (Praep. soph. 28.1 Borries),15 both variants condemned by Photius.16
4. LIKE A VIRGIN
A remarkably persistant feminine second-declension noun is ^ napGsvoq, the etymology of which is "enigmatique" in the words of Chantraine (1968-80: 858).17 Its original meaning seems to be 'maiden', the semantic narrowing to 'virgin' being secondary, as unmarried girls were not supposed to have babies (Janse forthcoming c).18 This appears to be the gist of the words of the chorus leader in Aristophanes' Clouds:
12	On theuse of Oeaei instead of vo|iw with regard to words see now Ebbesen (2019).
13	The name is very common (LGPN online lists 52 occurrences from Attica alone) and used three times by Aristophanes in other comedies (Eccl. 41, Thesm. 375, Vesp. 1397); cf. Dover (1968: 183), Sommerstein (1991: 197), Kanavou (2011: 150).
14	The 'transgenders' Ewarparn and KXewvu^n are discussed in more detail in Janse (forthcoming b).
15	Note that both wrote in Ionic - Semonides in the seventh, Hipponax in the late sixth century BC.
16	'ÄaßoXo; Or|A.UKÖc; ^ aaßoXoc;, oti^i ^ äaßo\r|, oüöe äpaeviKÖc; o aaßoXoc; (Phot., Lex. 2946 Theodoridis).
17	Beekes (2010: 1153) accepts the etymology proposed by Klingenschmitt (1974): *pr-steno- 'with protruding breasts'.
18	It is noteworthy that the primary meaning of napOevo; in the documentary evidence of the Hellenistic and Imperial periods is the age class of girls (Chaniotis 2016).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
31
(9) Kàyû>, napGévoç yap st' ^ kovk è^rçv nw ^oi tekeTv | e^éGr|Ka, naî; ô' sxspa Ti; Xa^oua' âvsiXsxo
and I, being still an unmarried maiden and not allowed to give birth, exposed [the child], and some other girl took it up and adopted it. (Ar., Nub. 530-1)
It is clear that the male (sic) chorus leader "speaks of himself metaphorically as an unmarried girl who had a baby and (in accordance with a common Greek custom) left it to die in the open country", in the words of Dover, who astutely adds that napGsvo; is here "not a biological term, 'virgin', but a social term, 'unmarried'" (1968: 167).19 The original meaning is borne out by the juxtaposition of napGsvo; and naî; ô' ètépa Ti; 'some other girl' (Nub. 531). The fact that the word can be combined with other nouns seems to indicate that it was originally an adjective, e.g. "yuvalka | napGsvov (Hes., Theog. 513-4), 0u"yaTr|p napGévo; (Xen., Cyr. 4.6.9).20 The meaning 'maiden' also underlies the use of napGsvo; in connection with |iGso; in Homer:21
(10a) napGévo; r(i'Geôc; T ôapiÇsTov âXX^Xoiiv
Maiden and youth both chat with each other. (Hom., Il. 22.128)
(10b) napGeviKai ôs Kai r|iGeoi âTaXa ^povsovTs;
Maidens and youth thinking innocent thoughts. (Hom., Il. 18.567)
The clearly archaic and poetic word |iGso; can be reconstructed as *ÎpiGspo;, which is presumably related to Proto-Indo-European *h1uidheu-'unmarried'. It is thus cognate with Sanskrit ferai vidhâvà, Old Church Slavonic B'bgoBa vudova, Latin uidua, Old Irish fedh, Welsh gweddw, Gothic Yl^nyQ widuwô and Old English widuwe, all meaning 'widow'. Chantraine questions the traditional etymologie: "il est difficile de tirer le nom du jeune homme non marié de celui de la veuve" (1968-80: 408), but Beekes connects the meanings 'widowed' and 'unmarried' (2010: 512) and concludes that it was originally an adjective (1992: 178).22
It may be noted that Latin uidua is not only used to refer to a widow,23 but also to an unmarried woman, notably in Tullia's urge to her husband Tarquin-ius Superbus, Rome's last king: se rectius uiduam et illum caelibem futurum fuisse contendere 'that it would have been juster for her to be unmarried and for
19	Cf. Sommerstein (1982: 187), Henderson (1998: 83), pace Sissa (1990: 86).
20	If Klingenschmitt's (1974) etymology is correct, napGévo; is originally a compound adjective, which would explain the fact that it is a second-declension adjective of two endings.
21	Cf. Hdt. 3.49.15-6.
22	A more detailed explanation is given in Beekes (1992).
23	As in Palinurus' warning to Phaedromus: dum abstineas nupta, uidua, uirgine ... ama quid-lubet 'as long as you stay away from a married woman, a widow, a virgin ... love whatever you like' (Plaut., Curcullio 1.1.37).
32
Mark Janse
him to be single' (Liv. 1.46.7). The juxtaposition of uidua with caelebs is very instructive, as the latter is also used to refer to a person who is single "through being unmarried, widowed, or divorced" (OLD, s.v.). Perhaps even more instructive is the following line from Propertius' tirade against Isis, where uidua is combined with puella: quidue tibi prodest uiduas dormire puellas? 'or what's in it for you that girls should sleep without men?' (Prop. 2.33.17). Finally, it should be noted that the adjective uiduus is also used to refer to men without women, e.g. iuuit uiduos rapta Sabina uiros 'the rape of the Sabine women aided the wifeless men' (Ov., Ars 1.102).
Its Greek equivalent is also occasionally used in combination with feminine nouns referring to female persons, e.g. Kopr| flGso; 'unmarried girl' (Eup., fr. 362 Kassel-Austin = 332 Kock).24 The Etymologicum Magnum has an interesting comment on Eupolis' use of flGso;:
(11) ^Gso; o ansipo; yd|iou veo;. anaviw; 5s enl napGevou, a>; nap' EunoAi
flGso;: a youth inexperienced in sex; rarely in reference to a napGevo;, as in Eupolis. (EM 422.40-3 Gaisford)
This brings us back to napGsvo; 'maiden' as a social term in the sense of 'unmarried girl' (cf. supra). The use of the phrase ouk e^v nu ^oi tsksiv by the chorus leader in (9) indicates that a respectable napGsvo; should not have children, but if she did, she could still be called a napGsvo;. The interpretation of napGsvo; as 'virgin' constitutes therefore a secondary semantic narrowing, based on the premise that "the categories of virgins and unmarried women were ideally identical" (Ogden 1996: 107140). For this reason it was assumed to be part of the aiSU; of a napGsvo; not to engage in sexual relations before marriage. This emerges clearly from the epic formula napGsvo; ai5oir| 'respectable maiden' in reference to Astyoche, who was still an unmarried girl when she was impregnated by Ares in her father's house (Il. 2.514). The same formula is used in reference to newly created Pandora by Hesiod (Theog. 571, Op. 70). In Sophocles' Trachiniae, Deianeira "contrasts her own anxieties as a married woman with the peace and freedom of a young girl before marriage" (Easterling 1982: 93), until she is called 'a wife instead of a maiden' (avtl napGevou "yuv^, Tr. 148). The latter is nevertheless described as living 'a carefree life in the midst of pleasures' (^Sovat; a^o^Gov |iov, Tr. 147). Such "pleasures" could include sex with a married man, because Heracles refers to Iole as 'the unmarried daughter of Eurytus' (t^v Euputsiav napGsvov, Tr. 1220), who he has nevertheless slept with him (tot; e^ot; nXsupot; o^ou KXiGstaav, Tr. 1225-6).25
24	Plato uses r|i0eoc; even in reference to animals in the sense of 'unmated' (Leg. 84od).
25	Hyllus is understandably scandalized by his father's wish that he should marry her (|ir|5' aWo; avSpwv ... aur^v avrl aou A.d|r| note, Tr. 1225-6).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
33
The idea that a maiden should ideally remain a virgin until she becomes a wedded wife ("yuv|) gave rise to the semantic narrowing of napOevo;.26 Compare, for instance, the definition of yuv| and napOevo; by Ptolemy of Ascalon:
(12)	yuv^ napOevou ôia^spei- yuv^ |isv yap KaXsixai Kupiœ; | ^ôr| àvôpô; nsipav s'iXr|^uia, napGsvo; ôs | |if|nœ |iur|0£Ïoà noxs àvôpo;
yuv| is different from napOevo;; yuv| is generally the word for a woman who has had sexual experience with a man, napOevo; for a woman who has not yet been initiated by a man. (Ptol. 61 Palmieri)
Pollux' definition of the verbs ôiaKopsùœ and ôianapGsvsùœ, both meaning 'deflower, implies the idea of virginity as well:
(13)	to ôs x^; napGsvou napOsviav à^sXéaGai
To take away a maiden's virginity. (Poll., Onom. 3.42 Bethe)
In the Judeo-Christian context, it is of course the virgin birth of Jesus that gave rise to the generalization of the sense 'virgin'. According to the Gospel of Luke, Mary is described as napOevov e^vnoTsu^svnv àvôpi 'a maiden / virgin engaged to a man' (Lc. 1.27). When the angel Gabriel announces that she will get pregnant, she asks how this could possibly be, since she does not 'know a man', i.e. carnally (avôpa où "yivœaKœ, Lc. 1.34).27 Mary's fiancé Joseph is of course, technically speaking, a man, but in Matthew's version of the story it is made clear that 'he took her as his wife and did not get to know her [carnally] until she had borne a son' (napeXa^sv x^v "yuvalKa aùxoù Kai où è"yivœaK£v aùx|v sœ; où exsKsv uiov, Mt. 1.25). John Chrysostom is therefore justified to ask the question that must have been on many people's lips:
(14a) nû; tîktsi | napOevo; Kai |isvei napOevo;;
How is it possible that the Virgin gives birth and remains a virgin?
(Hom. in Mt. 4.6 Field)
He could and should perhaps also have asked:28
26	For a very thorough discussion of the Greek concept of "virginity" see Sissa (1990).
27	Compare the description of Isaac's future wife Rebecca: napOevo; |v, àvip oùk eyvœ aùxr|v (Gen. 24.16), where napOevo; translates the Hebrew n^in? batulah.
28	Clement of Alexandria gave of course the only possible answer: |iia ôe |aovr| yivexai |ir|Tr|p napOevo; 'only one woman becomes a virgin mother' (Paed. 1.6.42.1). A longer discussion is given by Gregory of Nyssa (Or. dom. = PG 1136.15 Migne).
34
Mark Janse
(14b) nw; ya|ieiTai | napGevo; Kai |svsi napGevo;;
How is it possible that the Virgin gets married and remains a virgin?
Even though the mystery surrounding Mary's virginity remained, there was no doubt about her sex nor about her parental or, indeed, her marital status. It is therefore surprising that napGevo; remained a second-declension noun in the vast majority of the early Christian writers. Coker invokes "its religious significance" (2009: 51) to explain the overwhelming frequency of the second-declension noun (2009: 49, tab. 6) as opposed to its meagerly attested first-declension alternative. Coker found nine dated examples of napGeva instead of napGevo; in the TLG, six plural and three singular. The plural examples obviously do not refer to the Virgin Mary, a rather important fact which has escaped Coker's attention, but the (two, not three) singular examples do and this is of course noteworthy. The first example is taken from the Catena on the Epistle to the Hebrews and is very remarkable, as both the second-and the first-declension noun are used in the same text, which is dated to the fifth (!) century:
(15a) yeyovev uio; Aaui5, aw|a Xa^wv ek dyiai; napGEvou
He was born a son of David, receiving his body from the Holy Virgin.
(138.9-10 Kramer)
(15b) Tov . Sid dyiai; nap0Eva<; ysysvvn|evov
He who is born through the Holy Virgin. (138.16 Kramer)
The second example is found in the Late Byzantine Etymologicum Gudi-anum, where the legal status of children is discussed and napGevio; is one of the terms to refer to illegitimate children:
(16) napGevio; 5s o ek Trj; napGeva; £Ti vo|iiZo|isvr|; yevva>|ievo;
napGevio; refers to the son born from a woman who is considered to be a virgin (?) (EG 410.34 Sturz)
In Modern Greek, napGevo; has become a masculine second-declension noun used to refer to male virgins,29 as opposed to the feminine noun napGeva used to refer to a female virgin, including the Virgin Mary, e.g. in the invocation nava^ia |ou napGeva or more colloquially, with a hypocristic term of endearment, nava^itaa |ou napGeva—but the old epicine form continues to
29 "tte masculine napGevo; was already used in the New Testament book of Revelation to refer to men 'who were not defiled [si'c] by women' (o'l |£Ta yuvaucwv ouk e|o\uvGr|aav, Apoc. 14.4).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
35
be used as well, though not in combination with a hypocoristic: ^navayitaa / navoyia |^ou napGsvs.
5. BOYS AND GIRLS
Probably the most remarkable clashes between biological sex and grammatical gender occur in the category of diminutives referring to animate, particularly human beings. (Pseudo) Hippocrates famously distinguished the following age classes in the life cycle of men:30
(17)	naiSiov |isv eaxiv axpi; snxa exswv 656vxo>v ¿KßoAfjc;- nal^ 5' a^pi yovf; ¿K^uaioc;, e; xa 5i; snxa^ ^EipaKiov 5' axpi yeveiou Xa^vwaio;, e; xa xpi; snxa^ VEaviaKO^ 5' axpi; au^aio; öXou xoü aw^axo;, e; xa xexpctKi; snxa^ dv^p 5' axpi; svö; 5sovxo; exswv nevxr|Kovxa, e; xa snxaKi; snx& npEaßuTni 5' axpi nevxr|Kovxa s^, e; xa snxaKi; 6kxw^ xo 5' evxeuGev yepwv
He is nai5iov until he is seven years, i.e. until the shedding of teeth; nai; until puberty, i.e. two times seven; ^sipaKiov until his beard begins to grow, i.e. three times seven; veaviaKo; until the completion of the body's growth, i.e. four times seven; av|p until his fourty-ninth year, i.e. seven times seven; npeaßuxn; until fifty-six, i.e. eight times seven; and after that he is yspwv.
(Sept. 5 Roscher)
There are, of course, more words to refer to male persons of different age classes. Probably the longest and most detailed list is given by Ptolemy of Ascalon:
(18)	ßpe^oi; |isv yap eaxiv xo yevvr|9ev eüGsw;, naiSiov 5s xo xpe^ö|ievov ünö xf; xi9r|voü, naiSdpiov 5s xo ^5r| nepinaxoüv Kai xf; Ai^ew; avxexö|ievov, naiSiaKO^ 5s o ev xf sxo^sv^ r|XiKig, nal^ 5s o 5ia xä>v syKUKXiwv |ia9r||idxa>v spxö|ievo;, xov 5s e^^evov ol |i£v näW^Ka, ol 5s ßovnaiSa, oi 5s dvTinaiSa, ol 5s ^EWe^nßov- o 5s |iexa xaüxa e^nßo^, o 5s |iexa xaüxa ^EipdKiov, eixa ^Elpa^, eixa VEaviaKO^, eixa VEavia^, eixa dv^p |isao;, eixa npoßEß^KW^, ov Kai w^oyepovxa KaXoüaiv, eixa yepwv, eixa npEaßuxni, eixa eaxaToynpw^
30 The passage is quoted by several other authors: Ptolemy of Ascalon (Diff. voc. 61 Palmieri), Philo of Alexandria (Op. 105 Cohn), Pseudo-Iamblichus (Theol. ar. 55.14-56.7 de Falco), John of Damascus (Sac. par. = PG 95.1109.1-13 Migne). There were, of course, other divisions of the life cycle in Antiquity for which see, e.g. Overstreet (2009), Laes & Strubbe (2014: 23-9), Kosior (2016) and for the stages of childhood in particular Beaumont (2012: 17-24), Golden (2015: 10-9).
36
Mark Janse
Ppe^o; is the newborn, naiSiov the child fed by the nurse, naiSapiov the child which is already walking and learning to talk, naiSioKo; the one in the next age class, nai; the one who is following general education, the next age class is called by some naAAr|^, by others Pounai;, avTinai; or	the one
after that s^nPoc;, the one after that |sipaKiov, then |sipa^, then vsavioKo;, then vsavia;, then av^p |sao;, then npo^sP^Kw;, who is also called w|oyspwv, then yspwv, then npsa^uTn;, then eaxaToynpw;
(Ptol. 403.26-404.6 Palmieri)
It is possible that Ptolemy really believed that these words could and would be properly distinguished by some, but it seems more likely that the author of a treatise entitled nspl Sia^opa; Xs^swv was a bit obsessed with finding distinctions too subtle to be detected, let alone applied, by ordinary mortals. Homer, for instance, combines vsr|vir|; with avr|p (Od. 10.278, 14.523), Herodotus with nai; (1.61, 7.99, 9.111). The latter uses both vsr|vir|; and vsr|vioKo; to refer to Periander's son Lycophron (3.53), who is said to be seventeen years old (3.50). A young man who accidentally killed a boy (nai;) with a javelin in the gymnasium is referred to as |sipaKiov throughout Antiphon's second tetralogy, but in the defendant's second speech as vsavioKo; (3.4.6) as well as |£ipaKiov (3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.8). In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates' children are referred to as Ta naiSia, with an additional specification: Suo "yap auTw usi; a|iKpol |oav, si; Ss |£"ya; 'for he had two younger sons and one older one' (Phaed. 116b). In the Apology, Socrates mentions his sons (usi; "ys) again: si; |sv |sipaKiov ^Sr|, Suo Ss naiSia 'one already a young man, two still boys' (Ap. 34d). In Xenophon's Memorabilia, on the other hand, Socrates' eldest son is referred to as vsavioKo; (Mem. 2.2.1).
Some of the words listed by Ptolemy have feminine doublets which are derived from the same stem: naiSioKo; ~ naiSioK^, vsavioKo; ~ vsavioKn, |sipaKioKo; ~ |sipaKioKn,31 vsavia; ~ vsavi;, npsa^uTn; ~ npsoPuTi;.32 The word e^nPo;, originally a second-declension adjective of two endings referring to the age class of ^Pn 'adolescence',33 hence theoretically applicable to adolescent boys and girls alike,34 came to be used in fourth-century Athens as a legal term for boys who entered a two-year period of military training in their eigteenth year (Arist., Ath. 42).35 In reference to adolescent girls the now common noun e^nPo; is found from the sixth century onwards, and again in
31	On the positive and negative connotations of diminutive nouns in -ioko; / -ioKr| referring to persons see Chantraine (1933: 408-9).
32	The details of the relationship between the obvious cognates yepwv and ypau; / ypaia are disputed, cf. Chantraine (1968-80: 235), Beekes (2010: 285).
33	Compare the phrase ¿9' ^Pn; (Ar., Eq. 524).
34	Compare the expression	«paiav yd|wv 'she came to the marriagable age' (Eur., Hel. 12).
35	For a recent assessment of the Athenian ephebeia in the fourth century see Friend (2019).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
37
a legal context. In his paraphrase of the Justinian Code, Theophilus Antecessor, for instance, mentions oi appeveq ex Se Kal ai G^Xeiai e^rPoi 'the male and also the female adolescents' who are under the guardianship of a curator (Koupaxwpeuovtai) until they are old enough (at the age of twenty-five) to manage their property (Par. inst. 1.23.7-10). In the ninth-century successor to the Justinian Code, the so-called Basilika, e^rPoq is used in combination with napGsvoq (Bas. 2.2.12), Guyatrp (39.1.41) and Kopai (Scholia in Bas. I-XI 60.37.78.3). In Modern Greek, s^rPoq is still being used as a common noun in high-register scientific jargon, but colloquially o s^rPoq now has a feminine counterpart: r
The common noun naiq is much more interesting for our purpose. Homer uses naiq to refer to children of either sex and of any age. The wives and children left behind at home are referred to as naiSwv ^S' aXox^v 'children and wives' by Nestor (Il. 15.662), ^|£tepai x' aXoxoi Kal v|ma tsKva 'our wives and infant children' by Agamemnon (Il. 2.136),36 and Odysseus compares the Greeks 'wailing to each other to return home' (aXX|Xoiaiv oSupovtai oiKovSe vseaGai, Il. 2.290) to naiSeq veapoi xrpai xe "yuvaiKeq 'little children and widowed women' (Il. 2.289). The sex of the children is not specified in these cases: both v|ma tsKva (grammatically neuter) and naiSeq veapoi (grammatically masculine) refer to infants in general, whether male or female. Astyanax, on the other hand, is referred to as v|niov uiov 'infant son' (Il. 6.366, 6.400), naiSa xe v|niaxov 'infant son' (Il. 6.400), tovSe ... naiS' £|ov 'this here son of mine' (Il. 6.476-7) and tov p "EKtwp KaXseaKe ZKa^avSpiov 'him Hector used to call Scamandrius' (Il. 6.402), where the masculine agreement patterns are triggered by the sex of the boy. When naiq is used to refer to daughters, it triggers feminine agreement patterns, e.g. naiSa ^iXov (Il. 16.459), naiS' £|ov (Il. 6.479) versus naiSa ^iX|v (Il. 1.446), naiSa x' £||v (Od. 4.262).
In many cases, however, naiq is lexically opposed to its female counterpart, as in Eumaeus' account of the fate of Odysseus' parents (Od. 15.351-79). Laertes 'is grieving for his absent son' (naiSoq oSupetai oixo|svoio, 15.355), but Anticlea 'has died of grief for her glorious son' (axei oi naiSoq ans^Gito KuSaXi^oio, 15.358), after having brought up Eumaeus together with his sister Ctimene, of whom he says:
(19) 0uyaTEp' 'i^Gi|ir|, t^v onXotatrv tsks naiSwv
Her stately daughter [f], whom she bore as the youngest of her children [m/f].
(Hom., Od. 15.364)
36 For recent discussion of this particular line see Janse (2021).
38
Mark Janse
It is clear that naiSwv is here used generically in reference to both Odysseus and Ctimene,37 the latter being identified as GuyaTspi 'daughter' (15.364) as opposed to Odysseus, who is twice referred to as nai5oq 'son' (355, 358).
Example (19) leads me to a minor digression on the use of i^Gi^oq, an adjective with uncertain meaning and unknown etymology.38 In the example just quoted i^Gi^ agrees with GuyaTspi (cf. Od. 10.106, 15.364), is it does elsewhere: i^Gi^n aXo^oq 'stately wife' (Il. 5.415, cf. Il. 19.116, Od. 12.452), tyGl^n napaKomq 'stately wife' (Od. 23.92), i^Gi^n PaaiXsia 'stately queen' (Od. 16.332), tyGl^v n|pw 'stately Pero' (Od. 11.287). These are all feminine nouns referring to female humans, but in two cases i^Gi^oq does not agree with feminine nouns referring to inanimate aKsun, to borrow Protagoras' term quoted in (1). The first example occurs in the beginning of the Iliad:
(20a) noXXaq 5' i^Gi|iouq tyu^aq "'5i npo'i'atysv | |pwa>v
Many [f] valiant [m/f] souls [f] he sent down to Hades, of heroes.
(Hom., Il. 1.3-4)
It might be argued that tyuxn is here used metonymically to refer to the soul as a person, as in ^ia Taq noXXaq, Taq navu noXXaq | tyu^aq oXsaaa' uno Tpoia 'who alone destroyed many, very many souls under Troy' (Aesch., Ag. 1456-7, cf. 1465-6), tyu^aq 5s noXXaq K&yaG&q anwXsaaq 'who destroyed many and excellent souls' (Eur., Andr. 611), tyu^al 5s noXXal 5i' s^' snl ZKa^av5ptoiq | poaiaiv sGavov 'many souls died on my account by the streams of Scamander' (Eur., Hel. 52-3, quoted in Ar., Thesm. 864-5). Homer, however, uses tyuxn to refer to the souls of the dead:39
(21) SvGa 5s noXXal | tyu^al sXsuaovxai vskuwv KaxaTsGvnwxwv There many souls of the dead who have died will come forth.
(Hom., Od. 10.529-30)
The second example from Homer's Iliad is a variant of the first:
37	It may be noted that the superlative 6n\oTirrr|v instead of the metrically equivalent 'binary' comparative 6n\oTepr|v suggests that Laertes and Anticlea had more than two children.
38	Cf. Chantraine (1968-80: 473), Beekes (2010: 606).
39	Latacz et al. believe that "die yu^ai sind als Teile von Lebenden vorgestellt; yux| hat im fgrE nur hier ein adj. Attribut: 'starke' eigtl. zu 'Heroen' (Enallage). yu^ai verschmiltzt mit ipwwv zu einem Gesammtbegriff (etwa 'Heroenleben', 'Heroen-Existenzen')" (2000: 17). Apart from the fact that this explanation ignores the fact that ipwwv is added in enjambement, which precludes any "Verschmelzung" with yu^ai, the authors take pains to explain the difference between yu^ac; at Il. 1.3 (20a) and Ke^aXac; at Il. 11.55 (20b): "Ke^aXi [bewährt] bei Homer durchgängig seinen Körperteilcharakter ... und [könnte] daher niemals, wie yux|, in Gegensatz zu aüro; treten ..., das das ganze des Körpers (mit Kopf) bezeichnet" (ibid.).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
39
(20b) £|ieAAe | noAAa; 5' '^Gi^ou; Ks^aXa^ 'Ai5i npoiatysiv
He was about to send many [f] valiant [m/f] heads [f] down to Hades.
(Hom., Il. 11.54-5)
Liddell and Scott's remark that "Hom. uses	of women; but 1961^01
^u^ai, Ks^aAat, speaking of men" (LSJ, s.v. 1961^0;) is echoed by Montanari: "Hom. referring to women; -o; with fem. nouns speaking of men" (2015: 995). It is tempting to accept this explanation for an apparent mismatch in natural and grammatical gender agreement, but one is left wondering why noAAa; [f] should be left out of the game, when noAAou; [f] would have been a viable and metrically equivalent alternative. Alternatively, it has been argued that 1961^; is a second-declension adjective of two endings, except "bei Frauen" (Schwyzer 1950: 32).
Returning to the use of nai; in reference to sons, it is clear that the plural may be used to refer to male and not to female children, as when Hector is met with "the womenfolk at large" (Kirk 1990: 155) at the Scaean gates:
(22)	&|i9' apa |iiv Tpa>a>v aAo^oi 9sov r|5s GuyaTpE; | s!po|isvai naiSaq ts Kaaiyv^xou; ts sxa; ts | Kai noaia;
Around him the wives and daughters of the Trojans came running asking about their sons and brothers and relatives and husbands. (Hom., Il. 6.238-40)
Here, as in the case of (19), the daughters are referred to by 6uyaTpa;, the sons by nai5a;, but the identification of the latter can only be deduced from the context: the men return from the battlefield and the women are anxious to know if they are still alive. Shortly thereafter the sleeping quarters of Priam's children in his palace are described:
(23)	sv9a 5s naiSE; | Koi|iu>vTo npia^oio napa ^v^cta; a\oxoiai
There the sons of Priam slept besides their wedded wives. (Hom., Il. 6.245-6)
Again the identification of nai5£; as 'sons' is made possible by their conjunction with their wives and the mention of Priam's daughters in the following line (Koupawv 5s, Il. 6.247). Herodotus relates how the Hyperborean maidens (referred to as Kopa; at 4.33 and nap6svoiai at 4.34) who had come to Delos to bring offering but had died there, were honoured by the Delians: KsipovTai Kai ai Kopai Kai oi nai5£; oi A|Aiwv 'both the girls and the boys cut their hair', sc. in honour of the maidens (4.34).
In other cases, the sex of the children is revealed by the addition of the adjectives apa|v / app|v and 6rAu;, e.g. nai5£; appsvs; Kai 6^Asiai 'male
40
Mark Janse
and female children' (Plat., Leg. 788a), naiSa; 0r|Xetac re Kai appeva; 'children, female as well as male' (Leg. 930b), naiSa; 0r|Xetac 'female children' (Leg. 924e), aruXoi "yap o'lkwv natSe; eiaiv apaeve; 'for the pillars of a house are the male children' (Eur., I.T. 57). Even in cases where nai; is used in conjunction with 0uydTr|p, as in (22), apar|v is sometimes added for the sake of clarity, e.g. AXew apaeve; ^sv naiSe; ... 0uydTr|p Ss ¿"ysveTo 'Aleus had male children ... and a daughter' (Hecataeus 1a.1F.29a Jacoby). Oedipus distinguishes among his children 'the males' from his 'little girls':
(24) naiSwv Se twv ^ev apaEvwv |i| |ioi, Kpearv | npoaGfj |ispi|ivav- avSpEi; eiaiv, ware anaviv nors axeiv, svG' av wai, tou ^iou- | ralv S' a0\iaiv oiKTpaiv te napGEvoiv E^aiv ... raiv |ioi |isXea9ai
As to my children [m/f], about the males do not worry, Creon; they are men, so they will never lack, wherever they are, a means of living; but as for my two poor and pitiable little girls ... for them you must care!
(Soph., O.T. 1459-66)
Aristophanes uses an unusual combination to refer to a young girl. After stating that women have a fair share in the burdens of war, TeKouaai | KaKne^tyaaai naiSa; onXtTa; 'giving birth to sons and sending them off as hoplites' (Lys. 588-9), Lysistrata says she is worried nepi rwv Ss Kopwv ev rot; GaXd^oi; "yr|paaKouawv 'about the girls growing old in their rooms' (Lys. 593), contrasting naiSa; 'boys' with Kopwv 'girls'. She complains that even a grey old man 'marries a child girl in no time': ra^u naiSa Kop^v Ysyd^riKsv (Lys. 595).
Finally, there is of course the possibility of signalling the sex of the child by making articles or pronouns agree with the noun, as in Menander's Epitrepon-tes, where one of the girls (Kopai;, Epit. 477) Habrotonon was invited to play for at the Tauropolia is later referred to as T^v natSa (Epit. 480), ¿Xeu0£pa[c | naiSo; 'of a freeborn mother' (Epit. 495-6). Smicrines' daughter is called natS' emYa^ov 'marriagable girl' (Epit. 1115) and referred back to by the demonstrative pronoun Taurr|v (Epit. 1119).40
6. BOYS WILL BE BOYS
Before turning to the diminutives of nai;, I would like to present a remarkable difference in marking agreement with the neuter nouns tskvov and tsko;, both meaning 'child', in Homer. The latter always triggers neuter agreement
40 Another example is ai naiSe; aurai 'those girls' (Strattis fr. 27 apud Athen. 589a). They are said to have come from Megara, but are in fact Corinthian, so it is unlikely that naiSe; is here used to refer to "slave girls".
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
41
with ^iXo; in the vocative 91X0V tsko; 'dear child', whether it is used in reference to men (Achilles, Il. 9.437, 9.444; Hector, Il. 22.38, 24.373) or to women (Helen, Il. 3.162, 3.192; Aphrodite, Il. 5.373, 22.183; Athena, Il. 8.30; Leto, Il. 21.509). The former, however, seems to trigger masculine agreement in the vocative ^iXe tskvov in reference to men (Telemachus, Od. 2.363, 3.184, 15.125, 15.509). Hecabe addresses Hector first as tskvov e^ov (Il. 22.82), with the expected neuter agreement, and then as ^iXe tskvov (22.84). Eurycleia, on the other hand, addresses Penelope once as ^iXov tsko; (Od. 23.5) and once as tskvov 91X0V (Od. 23.26), both with the expected neuter agreement.
The diminutives of naT; are either male (naiSiaKoq) or female (naiSiaKr|), but the most frequently used are neuter: to naiSiov / to naiSapiov. Looking at the respective positions of the neuter diminutives naiSiov and naiSapiov and the masculine nouns naiSiaKoq and naT; in Ptolemy of Ascalon's division of age classes (18), one might be inclined to look for a correlation between grammatical and natural gender, but a naT; is generally not deemed old enough to be able to engage in sex—as opposed to a ^eip&Kiov, who is considered to be young enough to still go to school according to Aristophanes (Nub. 916-7) and old enough to have sexual relationships (Pl. 97591). Although the sex of a naiSiov does not seem to matter a lot, it is sometimes explicitly identified, e.g. 0r|Xu naiSiov (Plut., Pomp. 53.4) versus appr|v naiSiov (Ar., Lys. 748b).41
There are many cases in which naT; and naiSiov are used interchangeably to refer to the same child, e.g. tw av oiK| rwv avSpwv to naiSiov, rourou naT; vo^erai 'to whom of the men the naiSiov resembles, the naT; is adjudged to be his' (Hdt. 4.180).42 Aesop's fable about the boy who went hunting for grasshoppers begins with naiSiov and ends with o naT; (9b Hausrath-Hunger). Socrates discusses Protagoras' principle to navrwv ^sTpwv 'the measure of all things' in reference to a naiSiov who is immediately thereafter referred to as rou naiSo; (Plat., Theaet. 168d).
There is, however, a very interesting and remarkable case of a mismatch between the grammatical and the natural gender of a baby in Menander's Epitrepontes. The usual words to refer to the baby are naiSapiov (Epit. 245, 464, 473, 646, 986) and naiSiov (Epit. 266, 268, 269, 295, 302, 311, 354, 355, 403, 448, 533, 539, 569, 864, 896, 956, 1131).43 Once the baby is addressed as & ^iXTaTov tskvov (Epit. 856). On three occasions, however, it is referred to as naiq and identified as a boy. When Syrus reveals to Smicrines that the
41	In reference to the latter, Sommerstein suspects that "there may be a play on skleros 'hard' which, in later Greek at any rate, could also mean 'tough, virile'" (1982: 196).
42	The Ausoneans are said have eniKoivov 'promiscuous sex', oure auvoiKeovrec; KTr|vr|86v re ^iayo^evoi 'without living together and mating like cattle' (Hdt. 4.180). Here we have another example of an adjective which can be used in both a biological and grammatical sense, though I would hesitate to translate eniKoivov yevo; as 'promiscuous gender'.
43	naiSiov at Epit. 1076 refers to a male slave (cf. naTSe;, Epit. 1076-7).
42
Mark Janse
shepherd found the baby (to naiSiov, Epit. 295) with some jewelry, he presents him as if he is a young man:
(25)	avxbq napeariv ouToai. [to] na[iSi]ov 56; |oi, yuvai- ra Sspaia Kai yvwpia|aTa outo; a' anaireT, Aa' eauTw ^r|ai yap TauT' emTeGfjvai Koa^ov, ou aoi 5iaTpo^|v
He [m] is here himself [m]. Give me the naiSiov [v], wife. The bracelet and the necklace, he [m] is here to claim them back, Daos. He says they were put there as ornament for himself [m], not as support for you! (Men., Epit. 302-5)
The baby is anaphorically referred to by the demonstrative pronouns ouroai and oUro;.44 The use of the masculine oUro; instead of the neuter touto presents the infant as a young man who has the authority to claim the jewelry for himself. In other words, Syrus lets the baby speak on his own behalf, even though he identifies himself as its legal guardian (Kupio;, Epit. 306). He then asks whether the gold trinkets should be kept tw naiSiw ... sw; av ¿KTpa^fl 'for the child ... until he is grown up' (Epit. 311), confirming its status as an infant. The demonstrative pronoun now used to refer back to the baby is not the masculine oUro;, but the neuter touto (Epit. 314). Then, however, Syrus says the following:
(26)	Taw; sa9' o[uTo]ai | o na]T; unsp r||iac; Kai Tpa^ri; ev epyaTai; | unJepotyeTai TauT', e'i; 5s T^v aurou ^uaiv | a^]a; eXeuGepov Ti ToX||aei noveTv, | 9r|pav Xsovra;, onXa ^aaTaZeiv, Tps^eiv | ev a]y«ai
Maybe this boy [m] here is above our class and having been brought up [m] by working people, he may despise that, and when he is fully grown [m], he will want to try to engage in something fit for a freeman—hunting lions, bearing arms, running in competitions. (Men., Epit. 320-25)
By using the masculine o[uTo]ai o na]T;, Syrus is again presenting the baby as a young adult freeman who has the right to self-determination. Finally, naT; is used in the phrase xp||aT' ... op^avou | nai]5o; 'the possessions ... of an orphan boy' (Epit. 397-8), where the masculine noun is also used to emphasize the legal rights of the boy once he is an adult.45
I would like to conclude with a brief discussion of the use of |£ipaKiov. In (Pseudo) Hippocrates' division of age classes (17), |£ipaKiov is used to refer to an adolescent boy between fourteen and twenty-one years, i.e. between naT; and veaviaKo;, the latter being a full-grown, but still young, man. Ptolemy of
44	On the anaphoric use of ouro; see van Emde Boas et al., who suggests that "the use of ouro; indicates that the speaker suggests some 'distance'" (2019: 353), in the case of Syrus between himself and the child.
45	naT; also figures in a reconstructed line: Xa[piaiw naT; yeyovev eK Tf|c; tyaXJrp ia;; 'The [harp-girl has borne] Cha[risius a son]?' (Epit. 621 Sandbach).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
43
Ascalon, however, distinguishes ^sip&Kiov from ^EipaJ; in his division (18), which is remarkable as the same Ptolemy elsewhere distinguishes the two in the following way:
(27)	|i£ipaKiov Kai |isipa^ Sia^spei- ^EipaKiov |isv Xsysxai o apa^v, ^Eipa^ 5s ^
There is a difference between ^sipaKiov and |isipa^: the male is called ^sipaKiov, the female |isipa^. (Ptol. 94 Palmieri)
Moeris gives the following specification:
(28)	^EipaKia toui; appeva^ AxTiKoi- ^EipaKat; TO; 0nA.Eia<;"EXXrvsq
Attic writers call the males ^sipaKiov, Hellenistic writers call the females |i£ipa^. (Moer. 15 Hansen)
Given the obvious relationship between the two words, it seems surprising that the diminutive should be used to refer to male youths, whereas the base form from which it is derived is used to refer to female youths. Etymologically, ^sipa^ is related to Sanskrit irf marya- 'young man, lover' and ipfc maryaka-'small man'.46 The latter is a formation independent of ^dpa^, but the former suggest that ^sipa^ itself was derived from an unattested *^£ipoq, which would go back to Proto-Indo-European *mer-io- 'young (girl or man)' (Beekes 2010: 921). Chantraine (1933: 379) suggests that nouns in -a^ may have been originally adjectives, e.g. ^uXoq 'mill' — ^uXa^ 'millstone', XiGoq 'stone' — XiGa^ 'stony' as in XiGaKi notl nstpr| 'against the stony rock' (Hom., Od. 5.415). Herodian says that ^sipa^, -aKoq is feminine by analogy with other words in -a^ with a short suffix vowel such as ^ KXi^a^, -aKoq 'ladder', ^ m5a£, -aKoq 'spring' as opposed to masculine nouns with a long suffix vowel such as o Oaia^, -aKoq 'Phaeacean, o Gwpa^, -aKoq 'breast' (Hdn. GG 3.2.631). However, animate nouns in -a^ are often common nouns, e.g. aKuXa^ 'puppy, SsX^a^ 'swine, anaXa^ 'mole rat', so it is not inconceivable that ^dpa^ was originally a common noun as well. This would imply that the masculine use of ^dpa^ in "later writers" (LSJ) is not necessarily an innovation or an extension.47
The use of ^dpa^ to refer to a male youth is found in the story of the seven Maccabean martyrs who were one by one tortured and killed by Antiochus
46	Other cognates have been suggested, but rejected by Chantraine (1968-80: 678) and Beekes (2010: 921-2).
47	In the Aethiopica of the Atticist novelist Heliodorus, for instance, ^ |Mpa£ (4.19.4) is used alongside Tov ^EipaKa (10.23.4) and oi auv aiirw |i£ipaK£q (4.19.4). The use of the masculine o |Mpa£ ou|aoq ^iXoq 'the laddie, my dear friend' (Sol. 5.15) is ridiculed in Lucian's Soloecista by his "teacher" Socrates of Mopsus: XoiSopsiq ^iXov ovra; 'so you insult your own friend?' (Sol. 5.16), i.e. by calling him a |Mpa£ instead of a ^EipaKiov.
44
Mark Janse
IV Epiphanes.48 In the first version of the story, the third oldest is referred to as vsaviaKo; (2 Macc. 7.12), the seventh and youngest as vsavia; (7.25, 7.30) and psipaKiov (7.25). In the second version, they are collectively called psipaKiaKoi (4 Macc. 8.1), psipaKia (8.14, 14.4), vsaviai (8.5, 8.27, 14.9), vsaviaKoi (14.12) and even av5ps; (14.11), but also psipaKs; (14.8) and oi ispol psipaKs; (14.6).49
It is worthy of note that the Greek of 2 and 4 Maccabees is considered "literary and Atticistic" by Thackeray (1909: 13).50 As a matter of fact, the distinction between psipaKiov / psipaKiaKo; on the one hand and vsaviaKo; / vsavia; on the other is as spurious as in other cases quoted earlier in reference to Ptolemy's life cycle (18). Leaving aside psipaKiaKo; and vsavia;, it is interesting to observe that both psipaKiov and vsaviaKo; can be used to refer to "the junior partner in homosexual eros" (Dover 1989: 85). In Plato's Char-mides, Socrates says of the eponymous youth:
(29)	ou yap xi ^avAoi; ou5s tots ^v sxi naii; wv, vuv 5' oipai nou su paXa av ^5r| ^eipaKiov sin
He wasn't plain [m] even then when he was [m] still a naT; [m], but I suppose that he must be quite a psipaKiov [n] by now. (Plat., Charm. 154b)
Chaerephon replies:
(30)	auxiKa ... siasi Kal ^AIkoi; [m] Kai oio<; [m] ysyovs
Immediately . you will see how how big and what kind of a person he has become. (Plat., Charm. 154b)
When Charmides enters the room, followed by a host of other lovers (noWoi 5s 5^ aWoi epaaxai, 154c), Socrates consistently refers to him with masculine pronouns (eKsivo;, 154b; auxov, 154d), wherupon Chaerephon asks him:
(31)	xi aoi ^aivsxai o veaviaKOi;;
What do you think of the vsaviaKo; [m] ? (Plat., Charm. 154d)
It appears that a sexually active psipaKiov can not only trigger male attention but masculine agreement patterns as well, despite the neuter gender of the noun. NsaviaKo; thus fits the natural gender better than psipaKiov.
48	Antiochus IV was the first of the Seleucids to persecute Jews, which resulted in the Maccabean revolt (167-160 BC).
49	The 'holy youths' (i£pol pcipaKE;) are later called oi enxa MaKKa^aToi 'the seven Maccabees' by the Cappadocian Fathers, cf. Basil of Caesarea (Const. = PG 31.1385.45 Migne), Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 43.74.2 Boulenger), Gregory of Nyssa (Mart. 2 = PG 46.785.39 Migne).
50	For a more detailed discussion see, e.g., deSilva (2006: xii).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
45
Equally intriguing are the word choice and agreement patterns in reference to Cleinias in Plato's Euthydemus. At the very beginning of the dialogue, Crito introduces him as follwos: 51
(32)	ev |isaw S' u|iu>v to A^io^ou ^EipaKiov ^v- Kai |iaXa noXu, w ZwKpaTe;, eraSeSwKsvai |ioi sSo^ev Kai tou r||i8Tepou ou noXu Ti T^v r|XiKiav Sia^speiv KpiTo|oi>Xou aXX' ¿Keivo; |isv aKX^^po;, outoi; Ss npo^Ep^i; Kai Ka\o<; Kai dya06<; T^v otyiv
Between you was the ^eipaKiov [n] of Axiochus; and he seemed to me to have grown up quite a bit and not to differ a lot in age from our Critobulus [m]; but whereas the latter [m] is puny [m], the former [m] is precocious [m] and handsome [m] and noble [m] in appearance. (Plat., Euthyd. 271b)
The masculine gender of the demonstrative pronoun o^to; may have been triggered by that of ¿Ketvo;, which refers back to KpiTo|ouXou, which is of course a masculine proper name, but it may equally well have been trig-gerd by the fact that Cleinias is portrayed as being ahead of his age. He is nevertheless still refered to as to ^eip&Kiov by Socrates in his description of the same seating plan in which Cleinias was first identified by Crito (273b). Socrates agrees with Crito that Cleinias is well developed for his age (ov au noXu emSeSwKsvai, 273a) and goes on to say that he was followed by a host of lovers (epaaTai navu noXXoi, 273a), just as Charmides was described in his eponymous dialogue. In other words, the context is again erotically charged.
In the first eristic scene (272d-277c), Cleinias is first referred to as TouTovi Tov veaviaKov and immediately thereafter as tw ^eipaKiw toutw (275a). The context is no longer erotically charged, as Socrates' purpose is to have Eu-thydemus and Dionysiodorus persuade Cleinias 'to ensue wisdom and practise virtue' (w; xp^ ^iXoao^etv Kai apeT^; em^eXetaGai, 275b). He is twice characterized by Socrates as a veo; who is by his very nature susceptible to corruption (olov eiKo; nepi vsw, 275b). He urges the two sophists to make trial tou ^eipaKiou (275b) and they agree provided o veaviaKo; (275c) is willing to answer their questions. Socrates continues his account as follows:
(33)	Kai to ^EipaKiov ... |pu9piaae ts Kai dnop^aa^ £|Xenev ei; e|is- Kai eyd> yvou; avTov T£0opuPn^£vov ... ^v S' eyw
And the |ieipaKiov [n] ... blushed and looked at me in bewilderment [m]; and I, perceiving that he [m] was totally at loss [m] ... I said.
(Plat., Euthyd. 275d)
51 I translate KaXo; as 'beautiful', following Dover (1989: 16).
46
Mark Janse
Though a neuter noun, |£ipaKiov triggers masculine agreement patterns on the participle anop^aa; and the pronoun auTov, which in its turns triggers masculine agreement on the particple TsGopu^nisvov. It seems as if the youth is considered to be a (young) man of reason who is able to refute the sophists despite his anopia, as is clear from Socrates' reassurement:
(34)	Gappsi ... Kai anoKpivai dvSpeiw^, onoTspa ctoi ^aivsxai
Do not worry ... and answer like a man, whatever you think it is.
(Plat., Euthyd. 275d-e)
It is tempting to explain to masculine agreement pattern in (33) by the subsequent use of avSpsiw; in (34), which Socrates apparently uses to convince Cleinias that he is a (young) man of independent thought. Dionysiodor-us, however, is convinced that to |sipaKiov (275e) will be confuted, no matter what his answer will be, and Socrates knows he is unable to advise tw |£ipaKiw (276a), who continues to be referred to as to |sipaKiov in the ensuing interrogation (276b-d ter; 277b).
At the beginning of the first protreptic scene (227d-282e), as Euthydemus is about to press tov vsaviCTKov (277d) for the third fall (naXaiCT|ia, as in a wrestling game), Socrates continues his account as follows:
(35)	Kai eyd> yvou; Panriio^Evov to ^EipaKiov, PouX6|svo; avanauCTai avrro ... napa|u9ou|svo; sinov
And I, perceiving that the |sipaKiov [n] was going under and wanting to give it [n] some breathing space ... encouraged him with these words.
(Plat., Euthyd. 277d)
All of a sudden, Cleinias is presented as a helpless little boy who is "getting into deep water" (LSJ) and this time to |sipaKiov triggers neuter agreement patterns on the participle PanTiZ6|svov, here of course indistinguishable from its masculine equivalent, and the anaphoric pronoun auT6, as opposed to auTov at 275d (33).52 The idea that Cleinias is too young to be able to tackle questions of such magnitude is later explicitly stated by Socrates, when he explains to the bewildered Cleinias that good fortune is not the greatest of all good things (to iryiCTTov twv OyaGwv, 279c):
(36)	r| CTo^ia Srpou ... suxu^ia ¿cttv touto 5s Kav nal^ yvoi^ Wisdom surely . is good fortune; even a child would see that.
(Plat., Euth. 279d)
52 Unsurprisingly, this minute detail of grammar has escaped the attention of serious commentators of the Euthydemus such as Gifford (1905).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek	47
The particle 5|nou combines "the certainty of 5|" with "the doubtfulness of nou", but "often the doubt is only assumed ^st' sipwvia;" (Dover 1954: 267).53 That this is certainly the case here appears from Socrates' subsequent comment:
(37)	Kal o; eGau|iaaev- outwi; eri veoi; te Kai	¿axi
And he wondered at this; he is still so young and ignorant. (Plat., Euth. 279d)
At the end of the first protreptic scene, Socrates urges Euthydemus and Dionysiodorus again to show Cleinias how "to ensue wisdom and practise virtue":
(38)	eraSsi^axov tw ^EipaKi«, noxspov naaav eraax^^nv Ssi avTov KTaaGai, ^ sari Ti; |iia ^v Ssi Xa^ovTa su5ai|iovsiv xs Kal ayaGov avSpa sivai, Kal xi; aux| w; yap sAsyov ap^o^svo;, nspl noAAou r||iiv xuyxdvsi ov tovSe tov VEaviaKov ao^ov te Kai aya0ov ysveaGai
Show the ^sipaKiov [n] whether he [m] ought to acquire every kind of knowledge, or whether there is a single sort of it which he [m] must obtain if he [m] is to be both happy and a good man [m]. For as I was saying at the outset, it is really a matter of great importance to us that this vsaviaKo; [m] here should become wise [m] and good [m]. (Plat., Euth. 282e)
In (38), to ^sip&Kiov triggers masculine agreement patterns on the anaphoric pronoun auxov, as opposed to auxo at 277d (35), and on the participle Xa^ovxa, which suggests that Socrates is now treating Cleinias again as being compos mentis in that he assumes him to be capable of acquiring ¿maxim to become a 'good man' (OyaGov avSpa). It seems as if the use of xovSs tov vsaviaKov in the second part of Socrates' statement is intended to suggest that he is actually a boy on the brink of manhood.
At the beginning of the second eristic scene (283a-288b), which immediately follows after (38) and basically reiterates what Socrates had said, Cleinias continues to be referred to as vsaviaKo; (283a ter). He is turned back into a ^sipaKiov again, when Socrates allows the two sophists to apply their xsxvn (285b) 'to make good and sensible people out of bad and senseless' (¿k novnpwv xs Kal a^povwv xprarou; xs Kal e^pova; noisiv, 285a):
(39)	anoAsaavxwv r||iiv to ^EipaKiov Kal ^povi^ov noir|aavTa>v Let them destroy the ^sipaKiov for us and make him sensible.
(Plat., Euth. 285b)
53 Cf. van Emde Boas et al. (2019: 688).
48
Mark Janse
In other words, they should destroy the a^pov |£ipaKiov in Cleinias and turn him into a 9povi|o| avGpwno;, perhaps a 9povi|o| veaviaKo;.54
This is an important turning point in the intellectual evolution of Cleinias in the Euthydemus. As Sermamoglou-Soulmaidi points out (2014: 55), Socrates responds to Cleinias' growing eloquence by addressing him in an increasingly laudatory way: & KXeivia (288d), & KaXs nai (289b) and, finally, & KaXXiate Kai ao^wtate KXeivia 'most handsome and ingenious Cleinias' (290c), after Cleinias' brilliant explanation of the art of generalship (290b-d). Crito is equally impressed upon hearing Socrates' account of this:
(40)	ti Xsyei; au, & ZwKpate;, ekeTvo to ^EipaKiov toiaut' e^Gsy^ato; . oi|ai yap avTov eyw, e' taut' einev, out' EuGu5r||iou outs aXXou ou5svoi st' avGpumou 5eTaGai e'; nai5eiav
What are you saying, Socrates? Did that [n] |ieipaKiov speak like that? I am sure that if he [m] spoke like this, he does not need education from Euthydemus or anyone else for that matter. (Plat., Euth. 290e)
Clearly, Crito could not believe that a |eipaKiov would be able to speak in such a clear and sensible way. The masculine agreement on the anaphoric pronoun autov again indicates that Crito considers Cleinias to have grown out of the age class of |eipaKiov and to be no longer in need of education.
An even more remarkable shift in grammatical gender agreement appears in Plato's Protagoras, when Agathon is introduced as follows:
(41)	napeKaG^vto 5s autu eni tai; nX^aiov KXivai; nauaavia; te o ek Kepa|ieo>v Kai |eta nauaaviou vEov ti eti ^EipaKiov, a>; |sv eyw|ai Ka\ov te K&yaGov
t^v ^uaiv, t^v 5' ouv '5eav navu Ka\o<^ s5o^a aKouaai ovo|a autu eivai AydGwva Kai ouk av Gau|dZoi|i e' naiSiKd nauaaviou tuyxdvei wv and near him on the adjacent beds lay Pausanias from Cerames and with Pausanias a |eipaKiov still quite young [n], noble [n] of descent, I should say, and certainly handsome [m] of appearence. I thought I heard his name was Agathon and I should not be surprised if he is [m] Pausanias' nai5iKa [n.pl].
(Plat., Prot. 315e)
In this passage, Agathon is presented as a relatively young |£ipaKiov.55 The noun triggers neuter agreement on the adjectives KaXov te Ka^aGov, which refer to his "birth and breeding" (Lamb 1924: 115), but masculine agreement on the next adjective KaXo;, which refers to his current appearence. It is again tempting to see in this grammatical gender mismatch an attempt at
54	"tte word avOpwno; is used in this very passage (285b).
55	For speculations about Agathon's age see Denyer (2008: 84).
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
49
connecting the |ieipaKiov both with its past (t^v ^ugiv) and with its present (t^v iSsav).
In his current state, Agathon is obviously sexually active, as is made clear by Socrates' suspicion that he is Pausanias' naiSiKa. About the latter word Dover says: "The Greeks often used the word paidika in the sense of 'eromenos'. It is the neuter plural of an adjective paidikos, 'having to do with paides', but constantly treated as if it were a masculine singular" (1989: 16). In the passage just quoted (41), naiSiKa is used as the predicative complement of wv, which shows masculine agreement, even though it refers back to |eipaKiov.
There are many more cases of this kind of (mis)match between grammatical and natural gender. I conclude with some examples in which a neuter diminutive is used to refer to a female referent. The first one comes from Aristophanes' Wasps:
(42)	Kai to yuvaiov vrto0«rt£vaav ^ugT^v |&Zav npogeveyKr| | KaneiTa KaGeio^evn nap' e|oi npogavayKaZrp ^aye TouTi
And my little woman [n], suspecting [n] something, offers me a puff pastry and then, sitting [f] next to me, urges me: "Eat this!" (Ar., Vesp. 610-11)
In (42), to "yuvaiov triggers neuter agreement on the first participle unoGwneugav, but the second participle Ka0eio|£vr| is feminine, which agrees with the natural, not the grammatical gender of to "yuvaiov. A very similar example comes from the Septuagint:
(43)	Kai airroi eupigKougiv Ta Kopaaia e^£\nA«06Ta u5peugag0ai u5a>p Kai Xsyougiv airraid ei sgTiv evTauGa o ^Xsnwv; Kai anEKpi0n Ta Kopaaia . And they found the girls [n], who had come out [n] to draw water, and they said to them [f]: 'Is the seer here?' And the girls [n.pl] answered [sg] ...
(1 Ki. 9.11-12)
In (43), Ta Kopagia triggers neuter agreement on the participle £^e\r|Xu06Ta, but the anaphoric pronoun auTatq is feminine, the gender of which is again determined naturally, not grammatically. The following clause is therefore all the more remarkable, as the verb an£Kpi0r| is singular, because the subject Ta Kopagia is neuter. This is of course the normal agreement pattern for neuter plural subjects (van Emde Boas et al. 2019: 322), but in this particular case it indicates that the grammatical and not the natural gender prevails again.
The final example is taken from the story of Jesus' healing of the daughter of Jairus, one of the rulers of a Galilean synagogue. It is transmitted in three versions in the synoptic gospels. Mark's version begins as follows:
50
Mark Janse
(44)	to Guydrpiov |iou ¿a^atm; s^ei, i'va eXGorv emGfic; ta; xetpa; avrrfl lva ao>Gr| Kai i|ar|
My little daughter [n] is dying; please come and lay your hand on her [f], so she may be healed and live. (Mc. 5.23)
Here again the feminine pronoun aütfl does not agree with the neuter diminutive to Guyatpiov.56 Matthew (9.18) and Luke (8.42) read Guyatrip instead of Guyatpiov, which explains the feminine agreement in en' atitr|v in the version of the former (ibid.). Jesus' intervention is interrupted by a hemorrhaged woman and in the meantime Jairus' daughter has died. Jesus immediately goes to his house and says the following to the grieving crowd according to Mark:
(45)	to naiSiov oük aneGavev aXXa KaGeuSei ... Kai Kpatr|aac; tf ; xeipo; toü naiSiou Xeyei avrr^ taXiGa Kou|i, o eativ |ieGep|ir|veuo|ievov^ to Kopdaiov, aoi Xeyw, syeipe^ Kai eüGü; aveatr| to Kopdaiov Kai nepinatei- ^v yap etwv SwSeKa ... Kai einev SoGfvai aÜTfl ^ayetv
The naiSiov [n] is not dead but sleeping ... and he took the hand of the naiSiov [v] and said to her [f]: talitha koum, which translates as: 'girl [v], I say to you, stand up', and immediately the girl [v] stood up and walked around, for she was twelve years old ... and he said that she [f] should be given to eat.
(Mc. 5.39-43)
Again feminine pronouns are used to refer to neuter diminutives: the second aütfl (5.43) refers back to to Kopaaiov (5.43), but even more remarkable is the first aütfl (5.41), which refers back to to naiöiov (5.39) and roß naiöiou (5.41). In Matthew's version, Jesus uses the neuter diminutive to Kopaaiov (9.24), which is again referred back to by a feminine pronoun in the phrase ¿Kpatriasv tf; x£ip°; atitf; (9.25). Luke uses the feminine noun ^ Guyatrip with female agreement patterns throughout his version of the story, with one exception: he uses the common noun ^ nat; [f] instead of the neuter diminutive to Kopaaiov to translate taXiGa (Aramaic NrrVü).
Judging from (43), (44) and (45) it seems safe to conclude that Greek girls behave exactly like German girls. The use of feminine pronouns to refer to the German neuter diminutive Mädchen has become a textbook example of a clash between semantics and grammar. Braun and Haig conclude that the choice depends both on the "semantics of age" (2010: 70) and on the "semantics of femaleness" (2010: 82), which is perfectly applicable to the examples just discussed, except that the definition of "femaleness" in terms of "age" differ in the case of Greek girls. The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for the use of
56 It may be noted that a few witnesses (P45vid A pc) read aürö instead of aürp.
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
51
masculine pronouns to refer to the neuter diminutives naiöiov and ^stpaKtov, which is equally dependent on the semantics of age and maleness.
7. CONCLUSION
In this paper I have discussed selected mismatches between natural and grammatical gender and the ways in which grammatical agreement is sometimes used to repair such mismatches. Epicene nouns (§2) are sometimes overtly marked to reveal the natural gender of their referents, such as the male tortoise in (4b). The natural gender of common nouns (§3) can be overtly marked by agreement on articles, pronouns, adjectives and participles, as in the case of the cock in (6). Masculine second declension nouns such as Gsoq are prototyp-ically associated with male referents, as opposed to feminine first declension nouns such as Gsa which are prototypically associated with female referents. Apparent mismatches of natural and grammatical gender often result in the reassignment of a noun to the other declension, such as the feminine second-declension noun napGsvoq, which eventually became a first declension noun, i.c. napGsva (§4).
Nouns referring to human beings of the same sex sometimes differ in grammatical gender (§5). In the division of the life cycle of male human beings according to (Pseudo) Hippocrates (17) and Ptolemy of Ascalon (18), the neuter to naiöiov is younger than the masculine o naiq, who in turn is younger than the neuter to ^apaKiov, who in turn is younger than the masculine o vsaviaKoq. There seems no logical or, indeed, natural reason to shift gender twice in the coming of age of boys. The case of the common noun naiq reveals that if the natural gender is not explicitly marked by agreement or, indeed, by the addition of the gendered adjectives apar|v / appr|v and 0r|Xi3q, it is either ambiguous, especially in the plural (naiösq = 'children', whether male or female) or, quite often, exclusively male (naiösq = 'sons'). In the latter case, the opposition between male and female children is often expressed by antonyms, e.g. naiösq ~ GuyaTpsq (22).
Diminutive nouns offer the most exciting insights in the way natural and grammatical gender interact and, indeed, clash. Neuter diminutives normally trigger neuter agreement patterns, but sometimes the semantics of age and "maleness" / "femaleness" have an impact on the choices speakers and writers make. Grammatically neuter nouns such as naiöiov, ^apaKiov, yuvaiov, Kopaaiov and GuyaTpiov are sometimes referred to by masculine and feminine pronouns, and in some cases even trigger 'gendered' agreement on adjectives or participles, as in the case of ^sipaKiov in (33) and (41). Braun and Haig conclude their study of the use of feminine pronouns to refer to German Mädchen that "people perceive biological gender as more relevant for adults
52
Mark Janse
than for children" and that "a natural boundary, that of puberty, appears to be relavant in the statistical distribution of feminine and neuter forms" (2010: 82). A more detailed study is needed to determine to what extent this also applies to Greek, but the data presented in this paper indicate that this is a worthwhile topic for future research.
Mark Janse
Ghent University & Harvard University Mark.Janse@UGent.be
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beaumont, Lesley A. 2012. Childhood in Ancient Athens: Iconography and Social History.
Abingdon: Routledge. Beekes, Robert S.P. 1992. "Widdow." Historische Sprachforschung 105:171-88. Beekes, Robert S.P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill. Braun, Friederike, and Geoffrey Haig. 2010. "When are German 'Girls' Feminine? How the Semantics of Age Influences the Grammar of Gender Agreement." In Language in its Socio-Cultural Context: New Explorations in Global, Medial and Gendered Uses, edited by Markus Bieswanger, Heike Motschenbacher, and Susanne Muhleisen, 69-84. Tübingen: Narr.
Chaniotis, Angelos. 2016. "The Age of a Parthenos: A New Epitaph from Aphrodisias." In Vir doctus Anatolicus: Studies in Memory of Sencer $ahin, edited by Burak Tak-mer, Ebru N. Akdogu Arca, and Nuray Gökalp Özdil, 200-205. Istanbul: Kabalci Yayincilik.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre. 1968-80. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksiek.
Coker, Amy. 2009. "Analogical Change and Grammatical Gender in Ancient Greek." Journal of Greek Linguistics 9:34-55. Corbeill, Anthony. 2008. "Genus quid est? Roman Scholars on Grammatical Gender and
Biological Sex." Transactions of the American Philological Association 138:75-105. Corbett, Greville C. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denniston, J.D. 1954. The Greek Particles. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Denyer, Nicholas. 2008. Plato: Protagoras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. deSilva, David A. 2006. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in
Codex Sinaiticus. Leiden: Brill. Dover, Kenneth J. 1968. Aristophanes: Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dover, Kenneth J. 1989. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Easterling, P.J. 1982. Sophocles: Trachiniae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ebbesen, Sten. 2019. "Imposition of Words in Stoicism and Late Ancient Grammar and Philosophy." Methodos 19. Accessed December 12, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4000/ methodos.5641.
Friend, John L. 2019. The Athenian Ephebeia in the Fourth Century BCE. Leiden: Brill.
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
53
Gifford, Edwin Hamilton. 1905. The Euthydemus of Plato. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Golden, Mark. 2015. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens. 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Henderson, Jeffrey. 1998. Aristophanes: Clouds, Wasps, Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Henderson, Jeffrey. 2008. Aristophanes: Attributed Fragments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time, Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London: Macmillan and Co.
Janse, Mark. 2021. "The Tragic Irony of a Particle: Agamemnon's vöatoq and the Use of nou in the Ôiàroipa Episode (Il. 2.136)." Les Études Classiques 89. In press.
Janse, Mark. Forthcoming a. "Who needs kneading? A note on àW' èv Buda aTpoyyü\r| y' àv£|iàrt£TO (Ar. Nub. 676)." Manuscript.
Janse, Mark. Forthcoming b. "Transgenders' in Aristophanes' Clouds: Z«atpciTr| (678), KA.£wvû|n (680) and A|uvia (691)." Manuscript.
Janse, Mark. Forthcoming c. "Like a Virgin: nap9Évoc; 'Unmarried' but not Necessarily 'Untouched'." Manuscript.
Janse, Mark, Brian D. Joseph, and Gunther De Vogelaer. 2011. "Changing Gender Systems: A Multidisciplinary Approach." Folia Linguistica 45:237-244.
Kanavou, Nikoletta. 2011. Aristophanes' Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kirk, G.S. 1990. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 2, Books 5-8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1974. "Griechisch napGévoç." In Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Studien zur indogermanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indogermanischen Völker, edited by Manfred Mayrhofer [et al.]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Kosior, Wojciech. 2016. "Age and Notions Related to it in Greek Non-Legal Sources: The Contribution to the Research of Roman Law I." Roczniki Administracji i Prawa 16:85-96.
Laes, Christian, and Johan Strubbe. 2009. Youth in the Roman Empire: The Young and the Restless Years? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, W.R.M. 1924. Plato: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latacz, Joachim, René Nünlist, and Magdalene Stoevesandt. 2000. Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar. Bd. I: Erster Gesang (A), Fasz. 2: Kommentar. München: Saur.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2013. "Gender." In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics Online, edited by Georgios K. Giannakis. Leiden: Brill. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_C0M_00000139.
Montanari, Franco. 2015. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.
Novokhatko, Anna. 2020. "The Origins and Growth of Scholarship in Pre-Hellenistic Greece." History of Ancient Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Byzantine Age, edited by Franco Montanari, 9-132. Leiden: Brill.
Ogden, David. 1996. Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
54
Mark Janse
Overstreet, R. Larry. 2009. "The Greek Concept of the 'Seven Stages of Life' and its New
Testament Significance." Bulletin for Biblical Research 19:537-563. Schmidhauser, Andreas. 2010. "The Birth of Grammar in Greece." In A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, edited by Egbert J. Bakker, 499-511. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. 2. Bd., Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. München: Beck.
Sissa, Giulia. 1990. Greek Virginity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sommerstein, Alan. 1982. Aristophanes: Clouds. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Sommerstein, Alan. 2001. Aristophanes: Wealth. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Sermamoglou-Soulmaidi, Georgia. 2014. Playful Philosophy and Serious Sophistry. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Thackeray, Henry St John. 1909. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek. Vol. I: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vaahtera, Jaana. 2008. "On Grammatical Gender in Ancient Linguistics: The Order of Genders." Arctos 42:247-66. van Emde Boas, Evert, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. 2019.
The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wartelle, Paul, 1982. Lexique de la «Rhétorique» d'Aristote. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Willi, Andreas. 2003. The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Zweite Reihe. 2nd edition. Basel: Birkhauser [repr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009]. Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ABSTRACT
This paper is about the relation between natural and grammatical gender in Greek and the ways in which the twain are matched or mismatched. A variety of topics is discussed, including the relation between grammatical gender and declension, the resolution of gender clashes in epicene nouns and the marking of natural gender in common nouns. Particular attention is given to the gendering of neuter diminutives with male or female referents. Age and particular aspects of "maleness" or "femaleness" are shown to be major determinants in triggering male or female instead of neuter agreement patterns, especially on anaphoric pronouns, but occasionally also on other word classes such as predicative adjectives and participles.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, natural gender, grammatical gender, gender agreement, pronominal reference
Sex and Agreement: (Mis)matching Natural and Grammatical Gender in Greek
55
POVZETEK
Spol in ujemanje: (ne)skladja med naravnim in slovničnim spolom v grščini
Članek obravnava razmerje med slovničnim in naravnim spolom v grščini ter primere, v katerih prihaja znotraj navedene dvojice do ujemanja oziroma neujemanja. Naslovljena je vrsta vprašanj, denimo vprašanje razmerja med slovničnim in naravnim spolom, razreševanja protislovja med naravnim in slovničnim spolom pri epicenih ter zaznamovanja naravnega spola pri večspolnih samostalnikih. Posebna pozornost je namenjena problemu spola pomanjševalnic s slovničnim srednjim spolom ter z nanosniki moškega ali ženskega biološkega spola. Članek pokaže, da sta odločilna dejavnika, ki vplivata na privzetje moških ali ženskih vzorcev ujemanje namesto vzorcev, značilnih za srednji spol, starost ter določeni vidiki »moškosti« ali »ženskosti«. To še posebej pride do izraza pri anaforičnih zaimkih, občasno pa tudi pri pridevnikih, kadar so rabljeni kot povedkovo določilo, in pri deležnikih.
Ključne besede: stara grščina, naravni spol, slovnični spol, ujemanje slovničnega in naravnega spola, nanašanje zaimka
@0@
DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.4312/keria.22.2.57-83
Brian D. Joseph
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
1. INTRODUCTION
Back in the early 1980s, I was trying to raise some research funds for a project I had in mind involving Modern Greek, and I was looking at a Social Science Research Council (SSRC) brochure about their area studies grant programs. I saw that they had a program for "Eastern European countries" and one for "Western European countries" I thought I had better check out both programs to see where my grant application belonged because Greece historically is both east and west, and could reasonably be considered as belonging in one or the other group. However, in looking at the list of Eastern European countries, I saw expected ones like Yugoslavia (then still intact), Albania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and others, and in the list of Western European countries, there was France, Germany, Italy, and so on, but I could not find Greece on either list. Just to be sure, I telephoned1 SSRC to inquire into the status of Greece from their perspective and was told that I was indeed reading the brochure right, and that Greek and Greece were no place, so to speak, neither east nor west.
But of course we know where Greece is: it is planted firmly in the Balkan peninsula that occupies most of what can be called "Southeastern Europe" and geographically speaking, it is to the east of "eastern" countries like Albania or the Czech Republic or Slovakia, and to the west of truly eastern countries like Russia.
My SSRC experience is emblematic of an attitude about Greece and about Greek that pervades much of the way Greece and the Greek language are treated in the scholarly world, that is, they are seen as neither east nor west, located
1 Readers should keep in mind that this was before the days of the world-wide web and the internet, so brochures (made of paper!) and telephoning were the chief means of garnering such information.
58
Brian D. Joseph
in the Balkans but with no particular significance attached to the geography. As a reflection of this attitude, works on the Greek language typically act as if the fact that Greek is spoken in the Balkans is almost irrelevant to its history and development.
While such an attitude is understandable from certain points of view, it is especially curious because there are many linguistic characteristics that Greek has in common with the other "eastern" languages in the Balkans, specifically Albanian; the Slavic languages Bulgarian, Macedonian, and some parts (mostly southeast Serbian, the Torlak region) of the Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian complex; the Romance languages Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, (Daco-)Romanian, and Judezmo (also known as Judeo-Spanish); the Indic language Romani; and Turkish. In fact, the commonalities are so great that these languages are said to form a "Sprachbund", a term borrowed from German to signify a linguistic area where languages, through intense and sustained contact in a mutually multilingual society, have come to converge with one another structurally and lexically and to diverge from the form that they held previously.
To document and thus to begin to understand this view of Greece and especially of the Greek language, I first offer a brief historiography of the study of Greek in the Balkans. From such a starting point, I then document the status of Greek vis-à-vis its linguistic neighbors by way of building a case for why detaching the recent history of the Greek language from its Balkan element is a serious mistake, both methodologically and substantively.
2.THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF GREEK WITH REGARD TO THE BALKANS
First let me offer a quick overview of what has been said about Greek vis-à-vis the Balkans in some relatively recent treatments of the history of Greek:
-	Horrocks ([1997] 2010): a scant 3 pages in a c.400-page book
-	Moleas ([1989] 2004): no mention at all (even when potentially relevant features are discussed)
-	Tonnet (1993): virtually nothing; some features that have been ascribed to Balkan influence, regarding the pluperfect in Medieval Greek, are said to be of French origin
These three works are all by non-Greek scholars, but the same sort of treatment—or nontreatment as the case may be—can be said with regard to Greek linguists themselves, from somewhat more distant times. Jannaris (1897: 19), for instance, recognizes the possible relevance of Balkan languages for some structural aspects of northern dialects but makes it clear that he does not see much need to pay attention to it:
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
59
We see then that, from a phonological point of view, the northern and southern groups, especially towards their extreme boundaries (e.g. Velvendos in Macedonia—Crete), exhibit a very marked difference of sonantism .... It is further evident that the geographical position of the several localities, their isolation or their vicinity to foreign races, their political and internal history, have, to a greater or less extent, conduced to shape the idioms at present spoken in the various Greek communities. That these various dialects have not the same historical value needs no special comment. Thus while northern speech has been influenced by alien (Albanian, etc.) phonology, the dialects of Pontos and South Italy bear unmistakable traits of Turkish and Italo-Venetian influence. Now as phonology in every language is intimately connected with morphology, it inevitably follows that the grammar of the above specified (northern, Pontic and Italian) dialects has been, within Neohellenic times, considerably affected by extraneous influences. At the same time, a careful examination of the southern group will show that, for various reasons, these dialects have withstood foreign influence with far greater success than the northern, and so preserved the ancient phonology, substantially also morphology and syntax ... with such (chiefly morphological and syntactical) changes and vicissitudes only as would be inevitable from the nature of the case and the culture or spirit of the time. It is for these reasons that students of the post-classical and subsequent history of Greek, in looking for information in the present stage of modern Greek, should direct their attention not so much to the northern as to the southern group of Neohellenic dialects.
This is an interesting perspective, and Jannaris is certainly right that based on what we know of the history of Greek, the southern dialects do preserve certain aspects of the ancient language, especially as to phonology, more faithfully than do northern dialects. Nonetheless, the northern dialects are part of the Greek-speaking world, and what has happened to them, one could argue, is part of the history of Greek, whether or not the changes are due to contact with "alien" influences; that is, the facts of their development should not be ignored.
Especially telling is the statement in Andriotis and Kourmoulis (1968: 30), where the authors say that the Balkan Sprachbund is "une fiction qui n'est perceptible que de très loin" and that the commonalities are "tout à fait inorganiques et superficielles." Moreover, Balkanists, by which I mean scholars who look at the region as a whole and at the interactions between and among the various languages and who do not just look at one language in its Balkan context, have generally paid less attention to Greek than to other major languages in the region (that is, excluding those with far smaller numbers of speakers, such as Aromanian or Judezmo); Albanian, for instance, is quite the mysterious language, certainly the stepchild of Indo-European linguistics and thus less well-known and obscure, but that fact gives it a certain allure and
60
Brian D. Joseph
attraction, so that there are numerous works that pertain to it in its Balkan aspect (mostly not by western scholars, however). The fact that it is spoken in six countries—Albania and Kosovo as the main ones, but also Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Italy, as well as ... Greece, through both the now somewhat moribund but once quite vibrant communities of Arvanitika speakers who entered and settled in Greece some 500 or so years ago, and the more recent immigrant communities in Athens, Ioannina, and elsewhere—gives it a certain importance too (though the same could almost be said about Greek, inasmuch as it is spoken in Greece, in Albania, and in Italy, with enclaves too in Bulgaria and Turkey).
And, perhaps most importantly, most Balkanists (on the linguistic side) are by training Slavicists, lured into work on the Balkans by the intriguing parallels between several of the South Slavic languages and other non-Slavic Balkan languages, as well as the ways in which Balkan Slavic languages diverge from the rest of Slavic (e.g., regarding the system of cases in nouns). Indeed, from an historical point of view, it cannot be denied that most of the work done on the languages of the Balkans as a group has been by Slavicists; I have in mind early contributors like the Slovenian scholars Jernej Kopitar (1780-1844) and Franz Miklosich (1813-1891), as well as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, in the 1920s, both of whom were Slavicists by training even if their interests were more general, and whose views on the Balkans was also important to understanding the linguistic situation there. Furthermore, the scholar who was the benefactor of the professorship I hold,2 Kenneth E. Naylor (1937-1992), a South Slavic specialist who was also known as a Balkanist, should be added to this list. The Slavic orientation holds as well among Balkan linguistic scholars who are still living; I note, for instance, the following, listed roughly according to their age:
-	Helmut Schaller
-	Jack Feuillet
-	Ronelle Alexander
-	Petya Asenova
-	Victor Friedman
-	Grace Fielder
-	Andrey Sobolev
as among those who began their scholarly lives as Slavicists and got into Balkan linguistics through Slavic; some, admittedly, especially Asenova, Fielder, and Sobolev, do give scholarly mention to matters Greek in some of their work.
2 My position in the Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures, which I have held since 1997, is officially known as the Kenneth E. Naylor Professorship of South Slavic Linguistics.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
61
There are some notable exceptions, most particularly Eric Hamp, sadly recently deceased (February 17, 2019) at the age of 98, whose interests are so broad that it is hard to say he got into Balkan studies just through one language, but whose dissertation (1954) was on the Albanian of southern Italy. Mention should be made here also of Christos Tzitzilis of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, though he comes at Balkanistics from a Slavic orientation due to his studies in Bulgaria. A more relevant exception among 20th century scholars was the late Kostas Kazazis in that he was a Hellenist who extended himself into the other languages of the Balkans. And without wanting to seem self-promoting, I think it is fair to say that among current Balkanists, I am just about the only one who has come at the study of the Balkan languages from Greek (upwards, as it were, geographically, as opposed to downwards from Slavic).
This is not to say that papers on Greek topics are not to be found in Balkanist conferences and Balkanistic journals, but that is because such venues allow within their ambit studies of individual languages, without requiring attention to the Sprachbund aspect of the Balkans.
Interestingly, looking back on Balkan linguistic historiography, it can be noted that it took a non-Slav, non-Slavicist, non-Greek, non-Hellenist scholar, Kristian Sandfeld, the Danish Romance scholar who was a specialist in the Classics and especially Romanian, to elevate the study of the Balkans from a linguistic standpoint to a high level. His 1926 work, in Danish Balkanfilologien but known mainly from the 1930 French translation, Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats, really focused attention on the Balkans as a linguistic area and contact zone with a large number of interesting shared traits that deserve particular mention and attention from scholars.
There are other factors that have played into the dominance of the Slavic line in Balkan linguistics, such as the fact that Romance scholars for the most part seem not to have cared much about Romanian over the years, in comparison to the intense interest in French, Spanish, and Italian. Moreover, the relative accessibility of Yugoslavia and even Bulgaria in the post-WWII era, before the fall of the Soviet Union, gave Slavicists a place to visit and to do research in where, given the nature of the differences between South Slavic and the rest of Slavic—differences largely due to Sprachbund-related language contact—they would often be drawn into Balkan linguistics, but again, from the Slavic perspective as their starting point.
3. THE GENESIS OF THIS ARTICLE
So, why do we find a general rejection of the Balkans by Greeks and a relative lack of interest in Greek by Balkanists? The latter may be due, as suggested above, to the fact of how it was that many Balkanists got into the field,
62
Brian D. Joseph
i.e. coming from a Slavic perspective. For the former, however, one probably has to look, to a large extent, to ideology, especially as far as Greek linguistic scholarship is concerned (see Joseph 1985),3 which mirrors the ways in which Greek folklore studies and ethnography were affected, as discussed by Herzfeld (1982).
Nonetheless, some part of the answer may also come from insights to be gained from a lecture given at Princeton University in February 2013, sponsored by the Modern Greek Studies Program there. In particular, the renowned Greek historian, Professor Basil C. Gounaris of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, an Onassis Foundation Senior Visiting Scholar,4 spoke on "Greece and the Balkans: A Story of a Troubled Relationship (19th-20th Centuries)". His abstract is worth quoting in its entirety to give an idea of his argument concerning the relationship of Greece to the Balkans:
Before the ideas of Enlightenment and Hellas were infiltrated in the Balkan world, Balkan peoples shared a common mentality. Greek- and Vlach-speaking merchants topped the Christian social pyramid and it was their self-esteem and their economic prosperity which transformed enlightenment ideas into Greek nationalism. The glory of ancient Hellas gave a special meaning to their superiority. Through education it became increasingly clear that Greeks had absolutely no relation with the Slavs, formerly thought to be their brethren in God and in servitude to Islam. In other words Hellenisation could not be accomplished and turned into effective nationalism unless all links with the Balkan peoples were cut off. This paper argues that this process of estrangement was no easier or smoother than the transformation of the Greek-orthodox society itself into a Modern Greek nation. In fact the Balkan peoples and states became for the Greeks the convenient point of reference for evaluating social modernisation, politics, financial progress and irredentistic efforts. Furthermore it is argued that
3	The ideology also of Greek as "one language" diachronically and diatopically, as discussed in Joseph (2009), may also have played a role in this phenomenon, since it would seem to deny the significance of dialectal variation and contact leading to divergence from Ancient Greek.
4	The publicity for the lecture described Professor Gounaris' considerable scholarly accomplishments as follows:
Basil C. Gounaris is Professor of Modern History at the Department of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He studied Modern History in Thessaloniki and at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford (D.Phil., 1988). He serves as Director of the Centre for Macedonian History and Documentation in Thessaloniki. Since May 2011 he is the Dean of Humanities and member of the Governing Board at the Hellenic International University in Thessaloniki. Gounaris is the author of Steam over Macedonia: SocioEconomic Change and the Railway Factor, 1870-1912 (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1993); Family, Economy, and Urban Society in Bitola, 1897-1911 (Athens: Stachy, 2000 in Greek); Social and other Aspects of Anticommunism in Macedonia during the Greek Civil War (Thessaloniki: Paratiritis, 2002 in Greek); The Balkans of the Hellenes, from Enlightenment to World War I (Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2007 in Greek); The Macedonian Question from the 19th to the 20th century: Historiographical Approaches (Athens: Alexandreia 2010, in Greek); 'See how the Gods Favour Sacrilege': English Views and Politics on Candia under Siege (1645-1669) (Athens: Ethniko Idryma Ereunon, 2012).
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
63
this troubled relationship reflects until today the endless political dispute as to the exact position of Greece within the European civilisation.
Professor Gounaris' lecture afforded an ideal opportunity to explore the very interesting contrast between the "estrangement" of Greece and Greek society from the Balkans and the very profound influence the Balkans have had, and continue to have, on Greece from a linguistic standpoint. So, I take here this opportunity to carry out this exploration in print.5
First, by way of justifying the title of this article, various meanings and the etymology of strange and estrange (adjective and verb) are relevant (based on the Oxford English Dictionary [on-line version, oed.com], s.vv.):
STRANGE: 'from elsewhere, foreign, alien, unknown, unfamiliar,' from Old French estrange (Modern French étrange) ... from Latin extraneus 'external, foreign' from extra "outside of"
ESTRANGE (adjective (obsolete)): 'distant, strange, unusual,' from Old French estrange
ESTRANGE (verb): 'treat as alien; alienate'
My claim is that whereas recognizing the foreign, the alien (as Jannaris put it) in the development of the Greek language is not at all (e)strange—indeed the foreign has helped to shape Greek and to make the modern form of the language into what it is today, the southern varieties as well as the northern ones that Jannaris was so dismissive of—estrangement may have been necessary for the development of the Greek nation. That is, from a linguistic standpoint there is a longer history of engagement than of estrangement between Greek peoples and the Balkans. Interactions between Greek speakers and speakers of other languages in the Balkans have had profound effects on the Greek language that last to this very day.
Accordingly, I present here a side of Greece, namely the Greek language, that is not estranged from the Balkans, and explore the ways in which Greek has been affected by, and has influenced, other Balkan languages and the ways in which it can be considered to be a Balkan language.
4. LINGUISTIC PRELIMINARIES ON THE BALKANS
To set the stage, I offer as a preliminary an overview of the languages in question here. The Balkans have been a hotbed of multilingualism and language contact
5 This paper actually had a public airing orally, as I presented it at Princeton University, as a guest of the Hellenic Studies Program, on April 23, 2013.
64
Brian D. Joseph
since ancient times,6 but given my focus here on the interactions Modern Greek has had with its neighboring languages, I concentrate just on the medieval and modern era, the periods during which the Balkan Sprachbund took shape.
There is an important distinction to be made between languages that are geographically in the Balkans, what can be called "languages of (or in) the Balkans", and languages that show significant convergence in structure and lexicon due to contact among their speakers, that is to say, languages that participate in and form the Balkan Sprachbund, what can be called "Balkan languages".
4.1 Languages of/in the Balkans
The following languages can be identified as the "languages of/in the Balkans", given here along with some brief notes as needed and as appropriate; omitted here are languages of very recent in-migrations, e.g. by Urdu speakers who have settled recently in Greece, and international languages in wide use such as English or French:
-	Albanian (spoken in Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Montenegro, as well as enclaves in Greece)
-	Armenian (spoken in Bulgaria)
-	Bulgarian
-	Circassian (Adygey variety; spoken in Kosovo)
-	German (spoken in Romania)
-	Greek (including the very divergent dialects like Tsakonian and Pontic (the latter only in Balkans proper via relatively recent migrations from Asia Minor in the 1920s in the aftermath of the Treaty of Lausanne))
-	Hungarian (spoken in Romania)
-	Italian (spoken in the Istrian peninsula)
-	Judezmo (also known as Ladino or Judeo-Spanish)
-	Macedonian (the South Slavic language, not a continuation in any way of Ancient Macedonian)
-	Romanian (see below for fuller picture)
-	Romani (the Indic language of the Roms)
-	Ruthenian (also known as Rusyn, spoken in Vojvodina area of Serbia, considered by some to be a dialect of Ukrainian)
-	"Serbo-Croatian" (now the Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian complex of related West South Slavic varieties)
-	Slovak (spoken in a small enclave in the Vojvodina area of Serbia)
-	Slovenian
-	Turkish (especially Western Rumelian Turkish, distinct from the current standard language)
6 See Katicic (1976) for an overview of the various languages in the ancient Balkans.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
65
4.2 Balkan Languages
The following languages can be identified as the "Balkan languages", given here along with some brief notes as needed and as appropriate. They are a subset of the languages of/in the Balkans given in §4.1, and are those languages that participate to some significant extent in Balkan Sprachbund; varieties that are less involved in the Sprachbund are given in italics, though they differ considerably in degree of involvement:
-	Albanian (both major dialects, though to different degrees: Geg (North) and Tosk (South))
-	Bulgarian
-	Greek (various dialects, including Tsakonian (but excluding Asia Minor dialects))
-	Judezmo7
-	Macedonian
-	Romanian (actually more specifically Aromanian (spoken in Greece, North Macedonia, and Albania), and Meglenoromanian (spoken in a few villages in Greece and North Macedonia near the border between these two countries), less so Romanian (the national language of Romania and Moldova) and even less so Istro-Romanian)
-	Romani
-	Serbian (really only the Torlak dialects of the Southeastern Serbian-speaking area as most relevant; much less so Bosnian, Croatian, and Montenegrin)
-	Turkish (as in §4.1, not a "full" structural participant but crucial nonetheless)
A useful terminological point that emerges from this listing is that Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Torlak Serbian can be said to constitute "Balkan Slavic" (i.e., that part of the Slavic group that is fully in the Balkan Sprachbund), and similarly, Aromanian, Meglenoromanian, and to some extent Romanian itself can be classified as constituting Balkan Romance. To follow up on this presentation of the Balkan languages, we can now turn to the features that characterize the Balkan languages, that is to say, the features on which significant convergence among the languages in §4.2 is found.
7 See Friedman and Joseph (2014, 2021), and Joseph (2020) for discussion of the extent to which Judezmo can be considered to be a Balkan language.
66
Brian D. Joseph
5. BALKAN CONVERGENT FEATURES
In order to see where Greek stands with respect to the Balkan Sprachbund, it is necessary to survey the features on which the Sprachbund languages converge, so-called "Balkanisms". Unfortunately, no definitive list can be easily compiled of all such features, due in part to the vastness of such an undertaking, as there are so many points of convergence, but also due to methodological issues that are hard to resolve, such as how many languages need to be in on a convergent feature for it to be significant.8 I sidestep those issues here by giving a list of fifteen Balkanisms that have been discussed the most in the literature. These are but a small glimpse, in a sense, of the overall convergent picture but they are representative and have commanded the attention of analysts over the years. Moreover, they cover various levels of linguistic analysis: morphosyntax (a-g), semantics/pragmatics (h), syntax (i-j), and phonology (k-o); I add some lexical (and other more restricted) convergences in a later section (§8). I give a description of each such feature, without giving details or a lot of the relevant data, but I illustrate each one with an example from Modern Greek, where possible, or from one other language, in order to give readers a sense of what is involved in each:
(1) A selection of Balkan convergent structural features
a.	a reduction in the nominal case system, especially a falling together of genitive and dative cases, e.g. Greek rou avGpomou 'of the man; to a man' (continuing earlier Greek genitive rou avGpomou, dative tw av9poma>)
b.	the formation of a future tense based on a reduced, often invariant, form of the verb 'want', e.g. Greek Ga ypatyw 'I will write' (from earlier GsXei va ypatya), literally "it-wants that I-write")
c.	the use of an enclitic (postposed) definite article, typically occurring after the first word in the noun phrase, e.g. Albanian njeri 'man' ~ njeriu 'the man'
d.	analytic adjectival comparative formations, e.g. Greek too o^op^o; 'more beautiful'
e.	marking of personal direct objects with a preposition, e.g. Aromanian U vadzuj pi Toma 'I see Toma' (literally "him I-see PREP Toma")
f.	double determination in deixis (= a demonstrative adjective with a definite article and a noun, e.g. Greek auroc o avGpamo; 'this man' (literally "this the man"))
g.	possessive use of dative enclitic pronouns, e.g. Bulgarian knigata mi 'my book' (literally "book-the to-me")
8 To provide an index of the size of the task, I note that Friedman and Joseph (2021), perhaps the most recent, and (hopefully) authoritative compendium of data about linguistic convergence in the Balkans, runs to some 800 pages and has taken nearly 20 years to be completed.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
67
h.	the use of verbal forms to distinguish actions on the basis of real or presumed information-source, commonly referred to as marking a witnessed/ reported distinction but also including nuances of surprise (admirative) and doubt (dubitative), e.g. Albanian qenka 'I allegedly am'
i.	the reduction in use of a nonfinite verbal complement ("infinitive") and its replacement by fully finite complement clauses, e.g. Greek nw; ToX|id; va |iou |iiXd; ¿Tai 'How dare you speak to me like that' (literally "how you-dare that to-me you-speak thus"); cf. Ancient Greek ei ... ToX^^aei; ... syxo; aetpai 'if you dare to raise (your) spear' (literally "if you-dare spear to-raise", Iliad 8.424)
j. the pleonastic use of weak object pronominal forms together with full noun phrase direct or indirect objects ("object doubling"), e.g. Greek ae eiSa ea¿va 'you I saw' (literally "you I-saw you") k. the presence of a (stressed) mid-to-high central (thus, schwa-like) vowel, e.g. Albanian e
l. the presence of i-e-a-o-u in the vowel inventory without phonological contrasts in quantity, openness, or nasalization, e.g. Greek i e a o ou m. voicing of voiceless stops after nasals (NT > ND), e.g. Tr|v Tdar| (pronounced
[tin dasi]) 'the tendency' (accusative singular) n. presence of d 6 y, as in Greek
o. elimination of palatal affricates in favor of dentals, e.g. Greek Tarn; 'chips' (pronounced with dental [ts] even though from English chips (with palatal [tj])
With this set of features established, the question of the position of Greek among the Balkan languages, i.e. whether it is part of the Balkan Sprachbund, and if so, to what extent, can be taken up.
6. DISTRIBUTION OF FEATURES
Crucial to an answer to the question of Greek as a Balkan language is the determination of which of the features listed in §5 occur in Greek. As already indicated by the fact that some of the features in §5 are exemplified by material from languages other than Greek, it is the case that not every feature is found in all of the Balkan languages. Accordingly, the distribution of these features is given here, where * signals partial or dialectal (as opposed to Standard language) realization, "Slavic" means the feature occurs generally across Balkan Slavic and "Romance" that it occurs generally across Balkan Romance. Given the focus herein on Greek, the fact of a feature being found in Greek is highlighted by the occurrence of "GRK" in bold capital letters, and those features which are not instantiated in Greek are specially marked by being given in italics. It must of course be noted that even if a feature occurs across the Balkans,
68
Brian D. Joseph
it need not have arisen due to contact with other languages, as it could be an independent innovation in various languages; the matter of origins for the features is taken up in §7.
(2) The distribution of the features in (1)
a.	a reduction in the nominal case system, especially a falling together of genitive and dative cases [Albanian, GRK, Romance, Slavic]
b.	the formation of a future tense based on a reduced, often invariant, form of the verb 'want' [Albanian*, GRK, Romance*, Romani, Slavic]
c.	the use of an enclitic (postposed) definite article, typically occurring after the first word in the noun phrase [Albanian, Romance, Slavic]
d.	analytic adjectival comparative formations [Albanian, GRK, Judezmo, Romance, Romani, Slavic, Turkish]
e.	marking of personal direct objects with a preposition [Romance, Slavic*]
f.	double determination in deixis ( = a demonstrative adjective with a definite article and a noun (i.e., "this-the-man")) [Albanian*, GRK, Slavic*]
g.	possessive use of dative (genitive) enclitic pronouns [GRK, Romance, Slavic]
h.	the use of verbal forms to distinguish actions on the basis of real or presumed information-source, commonly referred to as marking a witnessed/reported distinction but also including nuances of surprise (admirative) and doubt (dubitative) [Albanian, Aromanian*, Slavic, Turkish]
i.	the reduction in use of a nonfinite verbal complement ("infinitive") and its replacement by fully finite complement clauses [Albanian*, GRK, Romance, Romani, Slavic]
j. the pleonastic use of weak object pronominal forms together with full noun phrase direct or indirect objects ("object doubling") [Albanian, GRK, Judezmo, Romance, Romani, Slavic] k. the presence of a (stressed) mid-to-high central (thus, schwa-like) vowel [Albanian, Romance, Slavic*] l. the presence of i-e-a-o-u in the vowel inventory without phonological contrasts in quantity, openness, or nasalization [Albanian*, GRK, Judezmo*, Romance, Romani, Slavic] m. voicing of voiceless stops after nasals (NT > ND) [Albanian, GRK, Aromanian]
n. presence of d 6 y [Albanian, Aromanian, GRK, Slavic*] o. elimination of palatal affricates in favor of dentals [Albanian*, Aromanian, GRK, Romani*]
It is misleading to think of the Balkan Sprachbund as being determined in purely quantitative terms, judged by a scorecard of pluses and minuses with regard to a selection of linguistic features. Among other considerations, it is especially hard to quantify the cases of partial involvement and it is also the
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
69
case that not all features necessarily count equally in terms of their effect on the overall structure of the language and how a language looks relative to the other languages; some of the phonological features, for instance, might affect only a relatively small number of morphemes in a given utterance.
Nonetheless, it is striking that 11 of the 15 features considered here find realization in Greek. Such a preponderance of representation of Balkan features in Greek intuitively gives a solid basis for considering Greek to be a true Balkan language and therefore a part of the Balkan Sprachbund.
7. THE DIACHRONY OF THESE FEATURES IN GREEK
Another dimension to the assessment of Greek as a Balkan language is the matter of how many of these features represent divergences from earlier stages of Greek—as noted in §1, with the convergence characteristic of the contact that creates the cluster of geographically connected languages referred to as a Sprachbund, there is typically divergence away from the structures and lexical forms that characterized these languages prior to the contact. This means that another index of the Balkan character of Greek is the extent to which the convergent features represent innovations away from the structures and vocabulary of earlier stages of Greek. In the case of Greek, we are fortunate in having the extensive documentary record of Ancient Greek, especially Greek of the Classical and post-Classical eras, so that it is possible to determine which features reflect changes that are candidates for Balkan contact-induced effects.
Four of the features under examination here are irrelevant for this question as they are not found in Greek at all:
(3) Features from (2) to be excluded
c. the use of an enclitic (postposed) definite article, typically occurring after the
first word in the noun phrase [Alb, Slavic, Romance] e. marking of personal direct objects with a preposition [Slavic*, Romance] h. the use of verbal forms to distinguish actions on the basis of real or presumed information-source, commonly referred to as marking a witnessed/reported distinction but also including nuances of surprise (admirative) and doubt (dubitative) [Alb, Slavic, Aromanian*] k. the presence of a (stressed) mid-to-high central (thus, schwa-like) vowel [Alb, Slavic*, Romance]
Of the remaining features, the ones that diverge from what is found in Ancient Greek are given in (4).
70
Brian D. Joseph
(4)	Features from (1) that are innovative within Greek
a.	a reduction in the nominal case system
b.	the formation of a future tense based on 'want' d. analytic adjectival comparative formations
i. the reduction in use of a nonfinite verbal complement ("infinitive") and its
replacement by fully finite clauses j. the pleonastic use of weak object pronominal forms together with full noun
phrase direct or indirect objects ("object doubling") l. the presence of i-e-a-o-u in the vowel inventory without phonological contrasts in quantity, openness, or nasalization m. voicing of voiceless stops after nasals n. presence of d 6 y
0.	elimination of palatal affricates in favor of dentals
Only features (f), double determination in deixis, and (g), possessive use of dative (genitive) enclitic pronouns, represent carry-overs from constructs found in Ancient Greek. Thus in 9 of the 11 features under consideration here that are found in Greek, we see structural changes on the way to Modern Greek.
Moreover, of these 9 features, it is possible to gauge how many are likely to be the result of or to have been enhanced by "alien" influence on Greek, i.e. due to contact with other languages—these are highlighted in bold below—as opposed to being a Greek-internal development, where the chronology often can tell us the extent to which contact was involved. For instance, a reduction of the case system, with the loss of the dative case, is evident in New Testament Greek and thus clearly predates Balkan contact.9 This is admittedly a difficult determination to make definitively in some instances, in that some features show beginnings in pre-Balkan-contact times but accelerate in later Greek under conditions of contact; such is the case with the pleonastic use of weak object pronouns, for instance (see Janse 2008) and the developments with the infinitive (see Joseph 1983). Still, here is the list of features as run through this filter, again with (c), (e), (h), and (k) excluded, and now also (f) and (g), as they are irrelevant to this aspect of the assessment:
(5)	Innovative features in Greek likely due to language contact
a.	a reduction in the nominal case system
b.	the formation of a future tense based on 'want'
d. analytic adjectival comparative formations
1.	the reduction in use of a nonfinite verbal complement ("infinitive") and its replacement by fully finite clauses
j. the pleonastic use of weak object pronominal forms together with full noun phrase direct or indirect objects ("object doubling")
9 See Humbert (1930) and more recently, Mertyris (2014, 2015).
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
71
l. the presence of i-e-a-o-u in the vowel inventory without phonological contrasts in quantity, openness, or nasalization m. voicing of voiceless stops after nasals n. presence of d 6 y
o. elimination of palatal affricates in favor of dentals
This calculus suggests that Greek developed various Balkan-like features—just under half of those at issue here—on its own, or at least started down that path to showing such structures, prior to the period in medieval times of significant contact with other Balkan languages. Although the numbers here are not as clear-cut as the others reported on above, they do not vitiate the claim that Greek is fully Balkan in many respects.
There are several reasons for this assessment. First, the occurrence of some of the features in other languages may be due to contact with Greek, so that even if some features within Greek have a Greek-internal origin, Greek would be part and parcel of the overall convergence zone. As it happens, the origins of the Sprachbund is actually a rather complicated question that has been the subject of much discussion and cannot be resolved here;10 still, it can be said that not all Balkanisms can be due to Greek influence—at the very least, since Greek does not have a postposed definite article, it could not have been the source of that feature in other languages. Second, even if a feature has a Greek-internal starting point, it could have gained scope within the language through contact, with influence from other languages enhancing the feature's viability within Greek. Third, it is not at all clear how many features are needed for a language to qualify as "Balkan"; as noted earlier, this judgment is not based simply on a scorecard of pluses and minuses—there has to be a qualitative dimension as well. Finally, even if of native/internal origin, the occurrence of a particular feature that is parallel to one found in another language in close contact gives a surface sameness between the languages, thus feeding the impression of a Sprachbund for bilingual speakers, regardless of the ultimate cause of the sameness.
Moreover, there are other features that can be considered, as the next section makes clear. I turn to those next.
8. ADDITIONAL FEATURES
As noted in §5, the features that have been considered in §6 and §7 are just a subset of the full scope of convergent features linking the Balkan languages to one another. Thus, there are others, actually many others, but in this section,
10 See Friedman and Joseph (2021) for discussion of the origins of various Balkanisms.
72
Brian D. Joseph
a few additional features, of two types, are mentioned here. First, there are a few features that are quite restricted in Greek, in that they are found just in certain regional dialects (and thus not in the standard language) and not widely distributed across the entire Greek-speaking realm. Inasmuch as such features are not widespread across all of Greek, they might be viewed as being less significant for judging the "Balkanness" of the language. However, since overall, and for each feature even, the degree of involvement of a particular language can vary, these restricted features are not irrelevant. Moreover, they are no less real for the varieties in which they occur, and thus must be taken seriously. Second, there are features that are not structural in nature but rather involve lexical material.
8.1 Dialectally restricted features
The quote from Jannaris (1897) in §2 indicates that northern dialects of Greek show some effects of contact with other languages in the Balkans that are not found in other dialects. Two areas of grammar where such dialectally restricted features occur in Greek are phonology and morphosyntax, as detailed in the following subsections.
8.1.1	Phonology
One feature found in northern Greek dialects is the raising of unstressed mid-vowels ([+mid] > [+high]), this e > i and o > u. This raising is exemplified by forms such as avGpounou; 'man' (nominative singular, vs. Standard Greek avGpwno;) and nipipivi 'wait!' (imperative singular, vs. Standard Greek nspipsvs!). This raising is found marginally in Albanian, in Judezmo (though under slightly different conditions so it may not be the same feature in a certain sense), and in Balkan Slavic. It is an innovation when compared with earlier stages of Greek, as reflected still in the standard language, based as it is on southern varieties (recall Jannaris's quote), and thus, given its geographic restriction, is plausibly to be attributed to language contact. In this way, therefore, northern Greek is brought in line phonologically with more centrally located Balkan languages.
8.1.2	Morphosyntax
In the realm of morphosyntax, there are two noteworthy features in northern dialects of Greek that show affinities with other Balkan languages.
First, in Thessalian Greek, as reported in Tzartanos (1909)—see (6a)—but also with a broader distribution in northern varieties, as reported in Thavo-ris (1977) and Ralli (2006)—see (6b)—an innovative placement of a weak
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
73
indirect object pronoun occurs with plural imperatives. In particular, instead of the expected occurrence of the pronoun outside of (to the right of) the plural marker -xi (with raising of earlier -s to -i, as in §8.1.1), the pronoun is positioned inside of (i.e., to the left of) the plural marker; for instance, one finds (here and in (7), hyphens have been added to make the parsing of the morphemes more evident):11
(6) a. So' - |i'	- xi
give.IMPV me.ACC 2PL
'(Y'all) give (to) me!'	(literally: "give-(to)-me-y'all")
b. ^¿pi - |iS	- xi
bring.IMPV me.ACC 2PL
'(Y'all) bring (to) me!' (literally: "bring-(to)-me-y'all")
From a language contact perspective, this innovative placement is interesting because it mirrors exactly what is found in Albanian with plural imperatives (cf. Newmark et al. 1982, Rasmussen 1985, Joseph 2010):
(7)	hap -	e -	ni open.IMPV it.ACC 2PL
'(Y'all) open it!'	(literally: "open-it-y'all")
The geographic restriction of this phenomenon in Greek and the availability of a model from Albanian, spoken in some parts of central and northern Greece, makes a claim of language contact suggestive as a basis responsible for this innovation.
Second, in the dialect of the northern Greek prefecture of Kastoria, as described by Papadamou and Papanastassiou (2013), there occurs an impersonal use of the nonactive voice verb form together with an indirect object pronoun to indicate internal disposition, what can be translated as "feels like". For instance, they cite the following (showing northern raising of unstressed -s/-ai to -i, and accusative for genitive):
(8)	a. |ii	Tpwyixi
me.ACC eat.3Sg.NonAct
'I feel like eating' (literally: "(to-)me it-is-eaten")
11 These examples also show the characteristic northern use of the accusative for the genitive indirect object.
74
Brian D. Joseph
b. pi	mvm
me.ACC drink.3Sg.NonAct
'I feel like drinking' (literally: "(to-)me it-is-drunk")
These constructions are perfectly acceptable for these northern speakers, and are constructed as if standard Modern Greek, contrary to fact, allowed sentences like pou tpw"y£tai / pou mvstai in the intended meaning.
What makes the sentences in (8) of particular interest in the Balkan context is the fact that other Balkan languages in the region, the same construction is found, with an impersonal nonactive verb and an indirect object personal pronoun, as in (9):
Mac	mi	se	jade	(burek)
	me.DAT	REFL	eats.3sg.PRS	(burek)
Blg	jade	mi	se	(bjurek)
	eats.3sg.PRS	me.DAT	REFL	(burek)
Alb	më	hahet		(një byrek)
	me.DAT	eats.3sg.NonAct.PRS		(a burek)
Aro	nji-si		mäcä	
	me.DAT-3REFL		eat.3sg.PRS	
	'I feel like eating (a burek)' (literally: "to-me is-			eaten ...")
The Balkan Slavic and Aromanian use of the reflexive pronoun with a 3rd person active verb form is the Slavic and Romance equivalent of the nonactive verb form in the Albanian and the Greek. This appears to be a Slavic construction in origin, as it is found in Slavic languages outside of the Balkans, so its occurrence in Kastoria Greek is clearly a contact-induced innovation, moving that variety in the direction of other Balkan languages it is in contact with.
8.2 Lexicon
The features discussed so far have been grammatical in nature, ranging over phonology, morphosyntax, syntax, and semantics, and it is certainly true that scholarly attention regarding the Sprachbund has long been on matters of grammatical convergence. However, there is an important lexical dimension to the Sprachbund as well, and the relevant evidence bears in important ways on the assessment of Greek as a Balkan language.
It is well documented that the lexicon is generally the first component in a language to be affected by contact, through the appearance of loanwords
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
75
(borrowings) passing from one language into another. Not surprisingly, one can find numerous words that are shared across languages of the Balkans. Greek is the source of many terms having to do with Orthodox Christianity, for instance:12
(10)	Christianity-related loans from Greek into Balkan languages
Grk ayiaa^a 'sanctification': Alb ajazme, Aro (a)yeasmo 'holy water, Blg ag-
iazma/ajazma, Mac ajazma 'holy water, Rmn aghiazma Grk ava^opa 'blessed bread': Alb nafore, BRo (a)nafora, BSl nafora 'holy or toasted bread'
Grk &va9e|ia 'curse, excommunication': Alb anateme,13 BRo anatema, BSl anatema (also Mac natema go 'damn him') Grk e'iKova 'icon': Alb ikone, BRo icoana, BSl ikona Grk KaXoynpoc; 'monk': Alb kallogjer, Blg kaluger, BRo calugar Grk r|you|ievoc; 'abbot': Alb (i)gumen, Blg igumen, BRo egumen (igumen), Mac egumen
Moreover, there is another significant lexical group of wide distribution in the Balkans consisting of words of Turkish origin, especially administrative and Islamic terms and words associated with aspects of urban commercial life, a reflection of the fact that Turkish was the key language of Balkan urban areas during the period of Ottoman rule, but also covering terminology for food, names for items of material culture, and the like. Among such words of Turkish origin are the following, constituting a representative sample (meanings the same as the Turkish source; / separates variants within a given language):
(11)	Turkish cultural loans into Balkan languages
aga '[Turkish] lord' (StTrk aga):u Alb aga, Aro aga, Blg aga, Grk aya;, Mac aga
asker 'soldier': Grk aaKspi. Rmi askeri, Rmn ascher15
minare 'minaret': Alb minare, Aro minare, Grk |iivaps;, Mac minaret
cami 'mosque': Alb xhami, Aro gimie, Grk x^a^i, Mac džamija
imam '(Muslim) priest': Alb imam, Aro imam, Grk i|ia|ir|i, Mac imam
dukkan 'shop': Alb dyqan, Blg djukjan, Mac dukjan
hendek 'ditch': Aro endec/handac, Blg hendek, Grk ^avraKi, Jud jendek, Mac
endek, Rmn hindichi/hendechi/handechi sokak 'alley': Alb sokak, BSl sokak, BRo socac, Grk ctokoki, Rmi sokako gorba 'soup': BRo ciorba, BSl čorba, Grk xaop^na;, Jud čorba, Rmi čorba
12	A key to the abbreviations used here and in other displays: Alb = Albanian, Aro = Aromanian, Blg = Bulgarian, BRo = Balkan Romance, Grk = Greek, Jud = Judezmo, Mac = Macedonian, Rmi = Romani, Rmn = Romanian, StTrk = Standard Turkish.
13	Here the Albanian /t/ suggests a non-Greek, probably Slavic, intermediary.
14	The Turkish source is actually Western Rumelian Turkish; the Standard Turkish form is given for comparison.
15	This is now archaic or historical and refers to (Ottoman) Turkish soldiers.
76
Brian D. Joseph
paga 'tripe, trotter': Alb paga, Aro pace, Blg paca, Grk narad;, Mac paca tencere 'pot; cooker': Alb tenxhere, Aro tengire, BSl tendzere, Grk TevT^eps;, Jud tengere, Rmn tingire
In a certain sense, such culturally related loans represent a somewhat trivial sort of language contact effect, in that all they do is demonstrate that contact of some sort occurred, but they really say nothing about the nature of that contact. Even very casual contact can yield cultural loans of this sort. What is more telling than these regarding the Balkan lexicon is the penetration of a different class of elements into the lexicon of the various Balkan languages. According to Friedman and Joseph (2014; 2021, Chap. 4) what is essential for understanding the Balkan Sprachbund is the recognition of a class of conversationally based loans that they refer to as "E.R.I.C." loans. This label is an acronym for borrowings that are "Essentially Rooted In Conversation",16 and their presence reveals something very interesting with regard to the nature of language contact in the Balkans. These loans go beyond the simple informational needs and the object/goal orientation that speakers of different languages who are interacting with one another have. Borrowing such words is not dictated by prestige or need, two of the most common motivations for loanwords; instead, E.R.I.C. loans are forms that can be exchanged only via direct conversational interaction, and they cover elements that include discourse particles, terms of address, greetings, exclamations, interjections, and the like, and therefore reflect a more human side of speaker interactions. Friedman and Joseph argue that the conditions of close and sustained contact that yield such lexical convergence, what they refer to as mutual multilateral multigenerational multilingualism, are also precisely the right type of social context in which Sprachbund-like structural convergence can emerge as well. Thus E.R.I.C loans point to conditions that are Sprachbund-conducive, as opposed to loans that take place under casual contact situations.
E.R.I.C. loans are all over the Balkans, as documented extensively in Friedman and Joseph (2021, Chap. 4), and, significantly for the discussion here, such loans are found in Greek. Many are from Turkish, but their source is not limited to Turkish, and indeed some of the E.R.I.C. loans in the various languages have their origins in Greek. In (12), a very small sampling of such conversational loans is given:
(12) Some conversational loans (E.R.I.C. loans) in the Balkans
Trk (provincial) de: Grk vTe (signaling impatience), Alb de (emphatic with imperatives), Mac de 'c'mon'
16 The term is also intended as a tribute to Eric Hamp, Balkanist par excellence and a scholar from whom I learned a tremendous amount about various Balkan languages, including Greek but especially Albanian.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
77
Trk belki(m) 'perhaps, maybe': Alb belqim, Aro belchi, BSl belki(m) 'maybe;
probably; as if', Grk |ine\KÍ(|i) (dialectal, e.g. Cretan), Jud (of Istanbul) belki Grk |iáAiaxa 'yes (indeed)': Aro (dialectal) malista
Trk (h)ay di 'hurry up! go on! all right!': Alb hajde, Blg hajde, Grk áivxs 'c'mon' Grk ela 'c'mon': Aro ela, Blg ela, Mac ela
Trk aman 'oh my!': Alb aman, BSl aman, BRo aman, Grk a|iáv, Jud aman, Rmi aman
Two very widespread conversational and discourse-related forms deserve special mention. The first is what Pring (1975, s.v.) calls an "unceremonious term of address", roughly 'hey you' but with many nuances of meaning and usage and a great many variant forms, almost all ultimately from Greek (cf. Joseph 1997):
(13)	Forms of an unceremonious address term in the Balkans Alb: o, ore, or, mor, more, moj, ori, mori, moré, mre, voré, bre Blg: more, mori, bre
Jud: bre
Mac: more, mori, bre Rmn: bre, ma, mai Trk: bre, bire, be
Greek here has forms such as pwpé, ftnpe, fípe, pe, apé, papé, ftaprf, wpé, fiopé, etc., some 55 variants in all. The second is the various forms with an -m- nucleus meaning 'but', of varied— and disputed—origins, and various uses (cf. Fielder 2008, 2009, 2015, 2019):
(14)	-m-based words for 'but' in the Balkans
a.	ama, ma, ami, mi (as discourse marker and conjunction) Aromanian
Greek Bulgarian Macedonian Meglenoromanian
b.	ama, ma only (as discourse marker and conjunction) Albanian
Judezmo
Romani
Turkish
c.	ama, ma (as discourse marker only) Romanian
In some instances, it is not specific words that are borrowed but rather the semantic structure of a word or phrase, resulting in a calque or loan translation:
78
Brian D. Joseph
(15)	Some Balkan calques
Trk kotek yemek 'get a beating' (literally "eat a blow"): Mac jade k'otek, Grk
Tpwyw ^uAo (literally "eat wood") Grk to ^¿po> an' si;a> 'I know it by heart' (literally "it I-know from outside") = Agia Varvara Romani (Messing 1988: 61) dzanav-les avral (avral = 'from outside, from abroad')
Relevant here too are various everyday expressions that match in the different languages but for which the directionality of borrowing is unclear; an example is the common greeting exchange in (16) where the shared response with its use an adverb (possibly with 'be') is striking:17
(16)	A shared greeting exchange
Alb Si je? (Jam) mire (note: adverb mire, not adjectival form i/e mire)
Blg Kak si? Dobre (adverbial form)
Grk nw; siaai; (Ei|iai) KaAd
Mac Kako si? Dobro (adverbial form)
Rmi Sar sijan? Shukar
Trk Nasilsin? Iyi
E.R.I.C. loans can also add color and affect to conversation; the highly expressive and mildly dismissive m-reduplication of Turkish, e.g. kitap mitap 'books (kitap) and such', is an example of such an affective borrowing throughout the Balkans. Examples are given in (17):
(17)	m-Reduplication in the Balkans Blg knigi-migi 'books and such' Mac kal-mal 'mud or whatever' Alb cingra-mingra 'trivia'
gikla-mikla 'tiny bits and pieces; crumbs; trivia' Grk TiavTiaAa-|idvTZaAa 'this and that' ("rags and such"), mnepi-|iinepi 'pepper and such', Ka9e-|ia9e 'coffee and such, i5ou-|ii5ou 'see here, or whatever'18 apa |iapa 'who cares?' aps; laps; (KouKouvaps;) 'nonsense'19
17	And indeed, some of these may be independent coinages in each language, but their surface similarity contributes to the sense of sameness among the languages from a lexical and phraseological viewpoint.
18	These last three examples come from Demetrius Byzantios's 1836 play I Babylonia, a work in which dialect-based miscomprehension is a recurring theme and m-reduplications occur frequently and for particular effect; see Levy 1980.
19	The additional word here, KouKouvaps;, means 'pine cones; pine nuts' and surely was added just for the rhyme effect; Joseph (1985) discusses other proposed etymologies for apa |apa and aps; |aps;. Whatever the source of individual pieces in these phrases might be, it is undeniable that the juxtaposition of these pieces fits the Turkish m-reduplication pattern in both form and expressivity.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
79
Moreover, many ERIC loans are members of closed lexical classes, representing vocabulary domains that are generally held to be somewhat resistant to borrowing, and yet they are borrowed. These classes include kinship terms, pronouns, negatives, complementizers. Friedman and Joseph (2014; 2021, Chap. 4) argue that the same intense and intimate conditions that yield the conversational borrowings offer the opportunity for the borrowing of these closed-class items. Some representative examples from these classes are given in (18):
(18) Closed-class borrowed E.R.I.C. items
Trk baba 'father': Alb baba, Aro baba, Grk |ina|inaq 'dad'
Grk |iou 'my': Aromanian -m (vs. native -n'i; from Latin mihi, presumably via *mnihi)
Trk yok '(emphatic) no!': Grk yioK
Grk oti 'that': Mac oti 'that'
Grk o,ti 'for that reason': BSl oti 'because'
E.R.I.C loans are thus found all over the Balkans and bespeak an intense sort of contact at a very human and personal level. In this way, therefore, even the lexicon provides some insight into the degree of Balkan integration that is seen in Greek. Moreover, the fact that Greek is both a donor and a recipient of E.R.I.C. loans means that Greek was a full participant in the contact that led to the Sprachbund, a relevant consideration when judging the degree of "Balkan-ness" that the language shows.
9. CONCLUSIONS
The material in the preceding sections, especially §§6-8, should make it clear that treating Greek as a full-fledged Balkan language is entirely warranted by the linguistic evidence, and specifically by the range of features it shares with the other Balkan languages. It is of course true, however, that as far as the standard language is concerned, Greek is not showing any signs of further "Balkanization", e.g. through the development of one or more of the Balkan features not found in the language, such as a postposed definite article, but at the same time, neither is it moving away from the Balkan features it currently displays. The simple fact here is that speakers of the standard language are not in close contact with other Balkan languages in the way that Greek speakers were in the pre-modern era. However, that fact does not lessen the Balkan character of the standard language, when viewed through the lens of the Balkan features it shows still.
Moreover, in situations where contact remains intense, varieties of Greek continue to show innovative effects resulting from that contact. The
80
Brian D. Joseph
geographically highly localized nature of the impersonal "feels-like" construction discussed in §8.1.2 suggests a relatively recent origin, inasmuch as it has not spread to other local varieties of Greek, and Lavidas and Tsimpli (2019) document the innovative omissibility of direct objects with specific reference in Modern West Thracian Greek, the local dialect of Evros, under conditions of contact with Turkish.
The answer, then, to the question implicit in the title of this piece is that there is nothing strange or estrange about considering Greek to be fully "Balkan" in all respects.
Brian Daniel Joseph The Ohio State University joseph.1@osu.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andriotis, Nikolaos P., and Georgios Kourmoulis. 1968. "Questions de la linguistique
balkanique et l'apport de la langage grecque." In Ivan Gâlâbov et al., eds., 21-30. Bethin, Christina Y., ed. 2008. American Contributions to the 14th International Congress
of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008. Vol. 1, Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Fielder, Grace E. 2008. "The Status of Discourse Markers as Balkanisms in South Slavic."
In Christina Y. Bethin, ed., 111-129. Fielder, Grace E. 2009. "Macedonian Discourse Markers in the Balkan Sprachbund."
STUF - Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61:97-176. Fielder, Grace E. 2015. "Triangulations: Navigating Distance in Interaction." In Distance in Language: Grounding a Metaphor, edited by Barbara Sonnenhauser and Anastasia Meermann, 215-242. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Fielder, Grace E. 2019. "A Constellation of Greek Adversative Connectives?" In And Thus You Are Everywhere Honored: Studies Dedicated to Brian D. Joseph, edited by James J. Pennington, Victor A. Friedman, and Lenore A. Grenoble, 85-104. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
Friedman, Victor A., and Brian D. Joseph. 2014. "Lessons from Judezmo about the Balkan Sprachbund and Contact Linguistics." International Journal of the Sociology of Language 226:3-23.
Friedman, Victor A., and Brian D. Joseph. 2021. The Balkan Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Gâlâbov, Ivan, Vladimir Georgiev, and Jordan Zaimov, eds. 1968. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européens. Vol. 6. Sofia: BAN (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). Hamp, Eric P. 1954. Vaccarizzo Albanese Phonology: The Sound-System of a Calabro-
Albanian Dialect. PhD diss., Harvard University. Herzfeld, Michael. 1982. Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press.
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
81
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A History of a Language and its Speakers. London: Longmans. 2nd edition. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Humbert, Jean. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec (du 1er au Xe siècle). Paris: Edouard Champion.
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time, Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London: Macmillan and Co.
Janse, Mark. 2008. "Clitic Doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek." In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, edited by Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski, 165-202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reissued in paperback, 2009.
Joseph, Brian D. 1985. "European Hellenism and Greek Nationalism: Some Effects on Greek Linguistic Scholarship." Journal of Modern Greek Studies 3:87-96.
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. "Methodological Issues in the History of the Balkan Lexicon: The Case of Greek vré/ré and its Relatives." In Neka mu e vechna slavata: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Zbigniew Golab (19 March 1923-24 March 1994), edited by Victor Friedman, Masha Belyavski-Frank, Marc Pisaro, and David Testen, Balkanistica 10:255-277.
Joseph, Brian D. 2009. "Why Greek is one of The World's Major Languages." Journal of Greek Linguistics 9:187-194.
Joseph, Brian D. 2010. "Revisiting the Origin of the Albanian 2PL Verbal Ending -ni." In Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Weiss, 180-183. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.
Joseph, Brian D. 2020. "Convergence or failure to converge in relative social isolation: Balkan Judezmo." To appear in Between Separation and Symbiosis, edited by Andrey Sobolev. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton Publishers.
Katicic, Radoslav. 1976. Ancient languages of the Balkans. 2 vols. Trends in Linguistics, State-of-the-Art Report 4, 5. The Hague: Mouton.
Lavidas, Nikolaos, and Ianthi Tsimpli. 2019. "Object Omission in Contact: Object Clitics and Definite Articles in the West Thracian Greek (Evros) Dialect." Journal of Language Contact 12:141-190.
Levy, Harry. 1980. "An Anatolian language-trait in Byzantios' Babylonia and parallel traits on three continents." MGSA Bulletin 12 (2): 47-55.
Mertyris, Dionysios. 2014. The Loss of the Genitive in Greek: A Diachronic and Dialectological Analysis. PhD diss., La Trobe University.
Mertyris, Dionysios. 2015. "Dissertation summary: The Loss of the Genitive in Greek; A Diachronic and Dialectological Analysis." Journal of Greek Linguistics 15 (1): 159-170.
Messing, Gordon. 1988. A Glossary of Greek Romany as Spoken in Agia Varvara (Athens). Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
Moleas, Wendy. (1989) 2004. The Development of the Greek Language. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. 2nd edition. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
82
Brian D. Joseph
Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti. 1982. Standard Albanian: A
Reference Grammar for Students. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Papadamou, Eleni, and George Papanastassiou. 2013. "The Position of the Northern Dialects of the Prefecture of Kastoria." In MGDLT 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (University of Ghent, 20-22 September 2012), edited by Mark Janse, Brian Joseph, Angela Ralli, and Metin Bagriacik, 389-400. Patras, Greece: University of Patras. http://hdl.han-dle.net/1854/LU-4211390. Pring, J. T. 1975. The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Greek (Greek-English). Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
Ralli, Angela. 2006. "Syntactic and Morphosyntactic Phenomena in Modern Greek
Dialects." Journal of Greek Linguistics 7:121-159. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegard. 1985. "Miscellaneous Morphological Problems in Indo-
European Languages (I-II)." Lingua Posnaniensis 28:27-62. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1926. Balkanfilologien: En oversigt over dens resultater ogproblemer.
K0benhavn: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Klincksieck. Thavoris, Antonis. 1977. "Mop^oXoyiKd |i£piK«v i5i«|idT«v tr|c; 5utikI|c; MaKsSovia;." In A' Zvpnóaio rXuaaoXoylac, tov fiopeioeXXaSiKov x^pov, edited by P. Kavakopoulos, 75-95. Thessaloniki: IMXA (Institute for Balkan Studies). Tonnet, Henri. 1993. Histoire du grec moderne. Paris: L'Asiatheque. Tzartzanos, Akhilleas. 1909. nepí rq(; avyxpóvov QeaaaXiK^q SiaXéKtov. Athens.
ABSTRACT
In a 2013 lecture at Princeton University, distinguished historian Professor Basil Gounar-is suggested that in the 19th-20th centuries there was a "troubled relationship" between Greece and the Balkans, and a process of "estrangement" associated with "the transformation of the Greek-orthodox society itself into a Modern Greek nation". This is all very well and good as far as the 19th and 20th centuries are concerned, and as far as the cultural and political side of the development of modern Greece are concerned, but there is a longer history of engagement between Greek peoples and the Balkans and other dimensions to that history. In particular, from a linguistic standpoint, the interactions between Greek speakers and speakers of other languages in the Balkans—Albanian, Slavic, Romance, Indic, and Turkish in particular—had profound effects on the Greek language that last to this very day. Accordingly, I present here a side of Greece, namely the Greek language, that is not estranged from the Balkans, and explore the ways in which Greek has been affected by, and has influenced, other Balkan languages and the ways in which it can be considered to be a Balkan language.
Keywords: Balkans, dialects, Greek, language contact, Sprachbund
What is not so (E)strange about Greek as a Balkan Language
83
POVZETEK
Kaj balkanskega grščini ni zelo (od)tuje(no)
Ugledni zgodovinar, profesor Vasilis Gunaris je leta 2013 na predavanju na Univerzi Princeton zagovarjal tezo, da je za obdobje 19. in 20. stoletja značilno »problematično razmerje« med Grčijo in Balkanom ter proces »odtujevanja«, povezan s »preoblikovanjem grške pravoslavne družbe v moderno grško nacijo«. Ko je govora o 19. in 20. stoletju ter o kulturnem in političnem razvoju v moderni Grčiji, je tezi težko ugovarjati. A interakcije med Grki in balkanskimi ljudstvi imajo daljšo zgodovino, ta zgodovina pa ima tudi drugačne vidike. Konkretneje, v jezikovnem smislu smemo trditi, da so pustili stiki med govorci grščine in drugih balkanskih jezikov - ali drugače, albanščine, nekaterih slovanskih in romanskih jezikov, romskega jezika in turščine - na grščini globok in še dandanes viden pečat. Tako v članku predstavim enega izmed vidikov Grčije, to je grški jezik, ki se od Balkana ni odtujil, ter raziskujem, v katerih pogledih so na grščino vplivali drugi balkanski jeziki ali obratno in v kakšnem smislu smemo o grščini govoriti kot o balkanskem jeziku.
Ključne besede: Balkan, narečja, grščina, jezikovni stik, jezikovna zveza
@0@
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/keria.22.2.85-117
Matej Hribersek
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
1. ABOUT VID (DOMINIK) PENN
Dominik or Vid Pen(n)1 is one of those Slovenian lexicographers whose work has remained relatively poorly noticed and quite forgotten in the history of Slovenian literature and Slovenian lexicography as well as in the history of classical philology, since he was not a writer who would decisively mark the history of Slovenian or Greek linguistics. He did, indeed, devote more than three decades of his life to the preparation of a dictionary which has never been published but remained in manuscript; due to certain peculiarities, the dictionary and its writer remained anonymous and poorly known or completely unknown to most people. Only scant notes are found about them which are scattered across the scientific and expert bodies of literature, and only one article (Stabej 1975) that somewhat more precisely sketches Dominik Penn's lexicographical and grammatical work. Nevertheless, he was a fascinating and slightly unusual lexicographer of the Slovenian language who included Greek in his work in a very unusual way.
Dominik Penn was born as Vid Penn on 5 May 1785, in the village of Sveti Vid near the town of Ptuj in Slovenian Styria, to father Franc and mother Marija; his Godparents were Mihael and Marjeta Kacijan.2 No information or records can be found about his youth. He probably went to primary school in his home town; in 1802, he enrolled in the gymnasium in Maribor, which he attended for six years, between 1802 and 1808. This was relatively late, since he was eighteen years old at the time, i.e. the age at which students usually completed gymnasium. At the time, the closest university
1	In the sources and documents his surname is mostly written with double n (nn), which he used himself also.
2	SAM, RMK (Parish register and obituary) Sv. Vid pri Ptuju 1756-1787, p. 325.
86
Matej Hriberšek
centre for students originating from Styria was the Karl-Franzens-Univer-sitat in Graz, Austria, where Vid Penn went in 1808 for a two-year course of studies in philosophy, which was a direct preparation for studying at the university. After these two years of studying philosophy, he enrolled to study theology at the university in Graz; at the end of the 18th century, this was also the only option if one wanted to study theology since that was a period when it was not possible to study it in Ljubljana: Four-year theological studies at the faculty, which had the right to award academic titles, started in Ljubljana in 1811, in the period of the Illyrian Provinces, when the authority over this territory was French. During his school years, he was influenced by a few patriotic individuals who knew how to appeal to the patriotic note in young people and encourage them to be active in the fields of literature, science, and culture. On 13 May 1810, students of Slovenian nationality and young Slovenian intellectuals in Graz, among whom was most probably also Vid Penn (even though this has not been documented), joined in the so-called Slovensko drustvo (Societas Slovenica), which was headed by the Slovenian teacher and intellectual Janez Nepomuk Primic; the primary mission of the society was to preserve the Slovenian language, its research, and to collect the Slovenian linguistic material.3 During his study of theology, Vid Penn decided that he would not work as a regular diocesan priest but entered the order of Friars Minor and chose his monastic name Dominik. He completed the study of theology in 1814; on 21 September of the same year he was ordained. As a priest he functioned only locally, on the narrow area of his home town and its surroundings in parishes run by Friars Minor: first, he was a chaplain in the parish of Sveta Trojica (The Holly Trinity, now Podlehnik) in Haloze until 1829, which was under the care of friars from the Minorite monastery; during this time, he was in close contact with his friend from his student years, Anton Krempl (1790-1844).4 In 1829, he took over his home parish of Sveti Vid (Saint Vitus) near Ptuj, which he ran until 1844; that year, he returned to Ptuj, where he became the monastery vicar and one of the members of the definitory of the Minorite province. He worked here until 14 April 1855, when his heart gave out and he was buried on 16 April in the cemetery near the church of St. Ozbalt in Ptuj.5
3	See Šumrada (2002), Slodnjak (2013), Kidrič (1934 a-b), Kidrič (1929: 381-383, 430-440, 483-546, 573-589), Legiša (1959: 36-38), von Wurzbach (1872: 309-310), Prunč (1983: 281).
4	See Glazer (2013-a), Raič (1869), Medved (1895), Macun (1883: 80-83), Glaser (1896: 183-184).
5	See Ilešič (1905: 6, 7, 10), Kidrič (1930: 80, 92, 229, 273), Kidrič (2013-c), Stabej (1975: 42).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
87
2. PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS
Not counting the sporadic mentions of the dictionary and Penn himself, the dictionary did not receive detailed study until the second half of the 20th century. It is interesting that later literary historians practically never mention him; and it is truly surprising that he is not mentioned even by Ivan Macun in his work Književna zgodovina Slovenskega Štajerja (Literary History of Slovenian Styria), the review of literary creativity in Styria.6 The only exception is France Kidrič, who first mentioned him in 1929 in his Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva (History of Slovene Literature), where he primarily stresses the role of Penn as a revivalist in Styria and his participation in the circle of Slovenian students and intellectuals in the time when he studied theology in Graz.7 A year later (1930), he presented D. Penn and his references in the sources of his work about Dobrovsky and his age, and he also wrote a short presentation of Penn's life and work for the Slovenski biografski leksikon (Slovenian Biographical Lexicon).8 The most in-depth discussion about Penn's dictionary, which has remained unnoticed until now, was published by Jože Stabej in the magazine Slavistična revija quarterly (Stabej 1975). In the last twenty years, the dictionary has been dealt with by Marko Jesenšek.9
3. THE DISCOVERY OF THE DICTIONARY
At the time when dictionary material was being collected and his dictionary made, Penn's lexicographical work was entirely unknown; it was familiar only to rare individuals who, like Penn, collected Slovenian vocabulary units. Indirectly, Penn's work was connected to the creation of the Slovenian-German dictionary, which Fran Miklošič started writing in 1849 (Ilešič 1905: 88). In collecting linguistic material, Miklošič was aided by some of the Slovenian students in Vienna, including Ivan Ertl (Ilešič 1905: 87-88, Kotnik 1919). He invited everyone who would be prepared to either collect the material or hand over previously prepared collections of words to join him; he also addressed his acquaintances to help him collect the dictionary material. In a letter of January 1850 (precise date unknown), he wrote to Jožef Muršec:10
6	Cf. Šlebinger (2013).
7	See Kidrič (1929: 458, 494, 496, 575).
8	See Kidrič (1930: 80, 92, 229, 273), Kidrič (2013-c).
9	See Jesenšek (1999-b: 369-370), Jesenšek (2015: 351-352).
10	About Muršec see Ditmajer (2019: 6-22), Vrbanov (1898), Macun (1883: 123-125), Legiša (1959: 157, 165).
88
Matej Hriberšek
Dragi prijatelj! ...
Ja sem sklenil izdati slovensko-nemški rečnik: kar sem skoz dolge leta nabral, zdaj s pomočjo svojih dobrih prijateljev v Beču dopolnjavam. Ali če učeni ljudje v slovenskih deželah meni ne pomorejo, delo ne bo moglo doseči tiste popolnosti, ktero toliko želim. Zato Vas lepo in lepo prosim, naj se Vam rači meni poslati če kako zbirko slovenskih besed pripravljeno imate: Ertel, kteri mi je od velike pomoči v mojem delu, mi je rekel, da tako zbirko imate. Ja sem dobil dve zbirki: Kopitarjevo, Rudeševo in celo kratko Ravnikarjevo. Poznate li Vi koga, ki bi tako zbirko imel, ali ki bi mogel in htel meni pomagati? Jaz rad platim, če kdo kaj za me včini. Morebiti bi v semenišču se kdo najšel ...
Dear friend! ...
I've decided to publish a Slovenian-German dictionary: what I have gathered over many years, I'm now supplementing with the help of my good friends in Vienna. But if learned people in Slovenian lands don't help me, the work won't be able to achieve the perfection I'm striving for. Therefore, I kindly ask you to be willing to send me a collection of Slovenian words, if you have one prepared: Ertl, who is of great help to my work, told me you might have such a collection. I have received two collections: one from Kopitar and one from Rudeš, and even a short one from Ravnikar. Do you know of anyone else who might have such a collection or who could and would want to help me? I gladly pay if someone does something for me. Maybe someone could be found at the seminary. (Ilešič 1905-a: 88, 1905-b: 158)
Fran Miklošič solicited assistance from a wide circle of Slovenian intellectuals who would collect for him primarily less known Slovenian words against payment; they sought help from the wider public, since the project was obviously seriously thought through. The only thing missing was people who would help collect the material, since Miklošič himself could not devote his time to this task due to his obligations in Vienna. On 23 July 1851, an unsigned author published Miklošičs invitation in Novice11 and presented a few individuals who were collecting linguistic material around the Slovenian national territory. At the same time, the author encouraged everyone who would be willing to embark on this task to join in. This article mentions Penn for the first time:
Gosp. dr. Miklošič misli tudi nabirek g. Penna, minorita v Ptujem, (kteri se neki že 30 let z nabiranjem slovenskih besed peča), kakor tudi mnogoletni gosp. Ca-fov nabirek kupiti, ako ju bo volja prodati.
11 The author was presumably Matej Cigale. See Breznik (1938: 155).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
89
Dr. Miklošič intends to buy the collection of Mr. Penn, a Friar Minor from Ptuj (who has been dealing with the collection of Slovenian words for some 30 years now), as well as the collection of Mr. Caf, if they are willing to sell them.
("Dopisi," Novice kmetijskih, rokodelnih in narodskih rea 9, 30 (1851) [sreda, 23. maliga serpana (srednoletna)]: 151)
However, Miklošič never published the intended dictionary, but did help with its creation in Ljubljana. Maks Pleteršnik, who as the editor oversaw the publication of the Slovensko-nemški slovar, explicitly wrote in the introduction to the dictionary in 1893:12 "Professor Dr F. Miklošič also gave his Slovenian-German dictionary (a manuscript in four volumes, containing 287 sheets) for the board to use." Yet, Pleteršnik does not mention Penn and his dictionary among the sources from which the composers of the dictionary drew the Slovenian words; obviously, his dictionary had been forgotten by then or they simply did not know of the lexical material (see Pleteršnik [1893] 1894-1895: iii).
What happened with the dictionary after Penn's death was clearly unknown; in periodical Slovenski glasnik for 1858, a writer (probably the editorin-chief Anton Janežič) wrote that he had received a letter from one of his friends in Styria, in which this friend familiarises him with Penn's dictionary:
Iz prijateljskega dopisa iz Štajerskega tole: Pravil mi je pred nedavnim nek rodoljub o slovenskem slovarju v rokopisu, ki ga je spisal po šestnajstletnem trudu P. Dominik v Ptujem l. 1845. Obsegal je po pisateljevih besedah 20-30 tisuč besed, in samo za dele v očesu je imel blizo 20 izrazov. Govorilo se je, da misli g. pisatelj svoje spise na Dunaj poslati - pa kdo ve, kje so sedaj? Škoda velika za lepo nabero, če se je zgubila.
From a friend's letter from Styria: I was told recently by a patriot about a Slovenian dictionary in manuscript that was compiled after the sixteen-year labours of F. Dominik in Ptuj in 1845. According to the author, it was compiled of 20-30 thousand words, and for parts of the eye alone he had nearly 20 expressions. It was said that the writer intended to send his documents to Vienna—does anyone know where are they now? It would be such a great shame if such a big collection were to be lost. (Janežič 1858: 172)
It is clear from the letter that neither Janežič nor his friend knew that the dictionary had been bought by Fran Miklošič, who had been interested in the purchase even before then. One question remains open: was the mediator between Penn and Miklošič the famous Slovenian linguist and collector of linguistic material Oroslav Caf?13 Caf's biographer Božidar Raič mentions that
12	See Breznik (2013), Pirjevec (1924), Pleteršnik ([1893] 1894-1895).
13	See Raič (1878), Kolarič (2013-a), Toš (2014), Šrimpf (1972).
90
Matej Hriberšek
in 1856 Miklošič came to visit Caf and suggested that they publish a dictionary he was preparing together, but Caf turned down the invitation to collaborate (Raič 1878: 82). Was it Oroslav Caf who gave Fran Miklošič Penn's dictionary? The preserved sources do not confirm such a conclusion; in any case, Caf was in possession of Penn's manuscript, yet it is unknown whether that was while Penn was still alive or after his death. First, this is indicated by an almost unnoticeable notice on page 86 of the German-Slovenian dictionary at the entry "Brustfell, diaphragma, atis, n. Pr|ZxiZa /rečica/ (omentum, peritoneum, diaphragm)", where Caf added the Slovenian meaning 'rečica' and signed his name (Image 1).




Arthii-s,"yofygp Arjf■ ^t'««--«»««UI
ui ¡/J?«.	' -
AJ/1cL. jSiie\'c<\ fix tywArßv	~
HC
T-n

At'n f, /¿/¿-¿¿s rd&rttrrij. -k
"J'OSiTi S'/ l*fX~iff>Jt*Ti.
'iS-
MlS^X Sfdfrt. /^mhr f«;,,*;	-n-ri,js
'J'IV. Uecfti-rt.
m.....,
-y^^Ti.	^	'TV:'*
Image 1: Oroslav Caf's addition in Penn's dictionary, p. 86; source: NUK, Ms.
H-><&>,.<. Otb-ijeUt*-. ¿täf-y/ffi^-,satiu-», -joec&rtA.
y tj , t , >w,i >-,,<f.
The second confirmation is found in Caf's letter to Božidar Raič, in which he was asking him about the word "skabica" that he found in Penn's material (Raič 1878: 86). It is certain that the dictionary found its way to Miklošič, who later sent it to Slovenian lexicographer Matej Cigale,14 who explicitly wrote this in his introductory review of the history of Slovenian lexicography two years later (1860), when he published his Deutsch-slovenisches Wörterbuch (Nemško-slovenski slovar, German-Slovenian Dictionary), the printing of which was sponsored by the Ljubljana bishop Anton Alojz Wolf. This is where we find more concrete information about Penn's dictionary for the first time:
14 See Atelšek (2013), Kolarič (2013), Kacin (2013).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
91
Von Herrn Professor Dr. Fr. Miklošič erhielt ich ein deutsch-lateinisch-windisches Wörterbuch des verstorbenen Pettauer Minoriten Penn (vollendet 1854), in welchem das Slovenische ungeschickt genug mit griechischem Alphabet geschrieben ist, das aber insoferne eine Beachtung verdient, als es aus einer lexikographisch noch wenig durchsuchten Gegend stammt.
I've received a German-Latin-Slovenian dictionary by the late Friar Minor Penn from Ptuj (finished in 1854) from professor Dr Fran Miklošič, in which Slovenian is quite awkwardly written in the Greek alphabet, but which is all the more worth noticing because it originates from a lexicographically poorly researched area.
(Cigale 1860, 1: vii)
What happened to the dictionary after Cigale got it from Miklošič is not known; it is last mentioned by Oroslav Caf in 1871. Caf publicly asked Slovenian intellectuals who was it that had offered him for transcription the manuscript by the Maribor Capuchin Friar Bernard or Ivan Anton Apostel a while back (1760);15 in his inquiry, he also awoke the memory of Penn: "Our Maribor has even two lexicographers: a friar Bernard and priest Narat ... as Ptuj has its own: Pen and Kupan" (Caf 1871: 1). The material of Penn's dictionary (similar to Miklošičs before him) was used by Caf in the preparation of his own dictionary material which was the base of Pleteršnik's dictionary (Jesenšek 1999-b: 370). After that, Penn and his dictionary sank into oblivion; it is not known what happened to the manuscript, but the dictionary was apparently left to be kept by Slovenska matica (possibly from Fran Ilešič), which later handed it over to the National and University Library (there are no precise data), where it is kept in the Manuscript Collection.16
4. THE PREFACE AND THE FIRST PART OF THE DICTIONARY
Penn's dictionary was being composed in the period between 1824 and 1845, and then he continued to supplement it until 1854. A clean copy of the dictionary was supposedly made sometime between 1846 and 1854 (Stabej 1975: 55). The dictionary's manuscript encompasses a total of 590 pages in the size 47 x 22cm and is subdivided into three parts: The first, most extensive part,
15	UKM, Ms 195 (F 83), Dictionarium Germanico Slavonicum, Vocabula tam Antiqua, quam Nova, usu recepta, juxta Etymon purioris Slavonismi Authorum, Methodice demonstrans ... Authore P(at)re Bernardo Marburgensi, Capucino. [Maribor] 1760. See Ilešič (1939), Vidmar (2013), Kidrič (2013-a), Stabej (1972), Jesenšek (1999: 360-361), Legiša (1959: 304-305), Kidrič (1929: 149, 151, 201, 204, 256, 258, 717).
16	NUK, Ms 1313, Deutsch-lateinisch-und windisches, dann windisch-deutschesWörterbuch Am Ende mit einem deutschen, lateinischen, windischen Alfabeticum, wie auch mit einer windischer Sprachlehre herausgegeben.
92
Matej Hriberšek
which has 471 pages, is the German-Latin-Slovenian dictionary comprising (approximately) 57,000 Slovenian words (Stabej 1975: 47); the author gave it a lengthy title:
Deutsch-lateinisch-windisches, dann windisch-deutsches Wörter-Buch zum allgemeinen / Gebrauche, besonders für die Geschäfts-Männer sowohl im weltlichen als geistlichen Stande in / den slovenischen Ländern, mit allen Bedeutungen einzelner Wörter und Redensarten. Am Ende / mit einem deutschen, lateinischen und windischen Alfabeticum, wie auch mit einer windischen / Sprachlehre, herausgegeben. / Deutsch-lateinisch-windisches Wörterbuch erster Theil Im Jahre 1854.
German-Latin-Slovenian, then Slovenian-German dictionary for general / use, especially for businessmen both of secular and clerical status in / Slovenian lands, with all meanings of individual words and phrases. / In the end with the German, Latin, and Slovenian alphabet, published along with / the Slovenian grammar. / German-Latin-Slovenian dictionary, the first part in 1854.
It is not known where Penn's stimuluses came from for the collection of lexicographic material; supposedly, friends he knew from the Societas Sloveni-ca while he was studying theology in Graz encouraged him to do this work when he was starting his career as a chaplain in Ptuj, therefore around 1820. The indirect cause for the work and its background can be discerned from the foreword written to the first part of his dictionary (Image 2). The main points from the introduction are:
-	that a comprehensive German-Slovenian and Slovenian-German dictionary has never been created;
-	that such a dictionary is essential for businessmen (he emphasised this twice; he probably has merchants in mind);
-	that in many parts of the Slovenian territory, German and barbaric expressions have sneaked into the Slovenian language (this idea is repeated twice in the introduction);
-	that the Slovenian language has got corrupted because true Slovenian words are being forgotten;
-	that the dictionary offers authentic Slovenian words collected by the author from people who still speak the "uncorrupted" language;
-	that the base for the dictionary is Schönbergers German-Latin dictionary;
-	that he has sought authentic expressions for all words and phrases, lands and towns in Europe, tree species, bushes, vines, herbs, livestock, birds, insects, fish, body parts, tools, etc.;
-	that numerous words included in the dictionary will be criticised;
-	that the vocabulary of his dictionary is authentically Slovenian.
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
93
Image 2: Dominik Penn, Deutsch-lateinisch-windisches ... Wörter-Buch (1854), foreword (Vorrede); source: NUK, Ms.
94
Matej Hriberšek
The introduction is unusual especially due to Penn's statement that there has never been a German-Slovenian and a Slovenian-German dictionary written. This was not true since he could use in his work at least five contemporary dictionaries: the third edition of Megiser's Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, published in 1744 in Klagenfurt on the Jesuits' initiative,17 Pohlin's Tu malu besedishe treh jesikov (1781)18 and Glossarium slavicum (1792), Gutsman's Deutsch-windisches Wörterbuch (1789),19 Jarnik's Versuch eines Etymologikons der slowenischen Mundart in Inner-Österreich (1832), and Murko's §lovensko-nemshki in nemshko-flovenski rozhni besednik (1832-1833);20 his sources could also have included both dictionaries by Anton Janežič: Popolni ročni slovar slovenskega in nemškega jezika (1850) and Vollständiges Taschen-Wörterbuch der slovenischen und deutschen Sprache (1851) (Murko 1832-1833). These dictionaries must have been known and used by Penn; why he decided to conceal this fact is not known. Next in the introduction, he speaks about German words, barbaric expressions and corrupted words, which had sneaked into the Slovenian language and corrupted it. It is difficult to decide exactly which expressions he had in mind, since he himself included in his dictionary a plethora of German words, which had indeed been established in both the Slovenian literary language and in its dialectal variants; he originated from an environment in which the language was distinctly dialectally marked (Image 3). A few examples:
-	Slo. cagati-Ger. zagen (Eng. to hesitate, to linger);
-	Slo. erb-Ger. der Erbe (Eng. heir);
-	Slo. jamrati-Ger. jammern (Eng. to groan, to moan);
-	Slo. gvišno-Ger. gewiss (Eng. certainly, sure);
-	Slo. knof-Ger. der Knopf (Eng. button);
-	Slo. nucati-Ger. nutzen, nützen (Eng. to use, to be useful);
-	Slo. štala-Ger. Stall (Eng. stable, stall), etc.
17	Megiser, Dictionarium quatuor linguarum; see Hriberšek (2008), Logar (2013), Legiša (1959: 251-252), Kidrič (1929: 47, [51], 53, [57, 73], 78, [78], 83, [84, 89], 90, 109, [110], 113, [121, 123, 124], 125, 127, [127], 128, 129, 130, 131, [134, 135], 136, 142, 237, 238, 251, 389, 405, 422, 491, 717).
18	See Pohlin (1781), Legiša (1959: 353-361).
19	See Gutsman (1789), Legiša (1959: 366-368).
20	See Macun (1883: 109-112), Pajek (1880), Glazer (2013), Jesenšek (1999-a), Hartman (1998).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
95




....... "
"/" " 'i"	-wa»,,. ,i/St .



'^r^&MT^.....


,	'W.,yfirviDt
.	"J""*». le&a-e'. ofi,MT<.
^	«yrc.se	s 7
W'tfafsuZ, ' "^"'Z. a	¿¿eer.*,**-**^.^,.
i^JTTcr , ) * fi	Mi'


'	in-; fer-c. TtgeXt ultx . {

■e/xTi .



Veiyi'trc .
-Af/c 4«.	o v'




f-erlium ftji&rz. ^cyr-tKit

c^yv-r-<: ctx/tis?,,?-''^*. -/■ " -"$"3Tri.	. ^

cn
TSTTSTT.
•A«/osvy	fr*■
fMieX.1 -vet T/WSJJVO VV-MT-I,	£	£(C i/ / ■
-1 . ■S'- tJ-r-i-ni.!^ ¿JyYj J¿JiTz
7>/'//'	jCv^,..,,	TOO yfls.tt a-ii^c-." -AVi,
Caridere, -fi/ty'*-r' . t,.'„ j^n/tiT^X,. Jg_	C/-X
gl .V/y^f' TV - Xir—
fapo^iTl .	-jJl'J-iJyii/c^-r.: Oi-ffO^ixKJo er.yjrrx \tr I
Image 3: Example from Penn's Deutsch-lateinisch-windisches ... Wörter-Buch (1854), p. 1; source: NUK, Ms.
96
Matej Hriberšek
All of the above and many other expressions are classified by contemporary Slovenian lexicography as non-literary, colloquial, or folk expressions. Again, it is not known whether the preface to the dictionary is Penn's own work; it is quite possible that he recapped it from some other dictionary or manuscript and did not mention it.
Penn chose the work of an Austrian school teacher and scholar Andreas Corsinus (Franz Xaver) Schönberger (1754-1820),21 deserving for the advancement of the classical educational system and a very prolific expert writer, for the basis of his dictionary. His greatest achievement was the transformation of Scheller-Lünemanns Latin-German and German-Latin dictionary, which was published in Vienna in 1818-1820 in three volumes (Scheller, Lünemann, and Schönberger 1818-1820), with which he wanted to provide an appropriate dictionary for high schools and universities in Austria, and also for general business use, since Schönberger mentions in his introduction that the dictionary could also be of use to businessmen; this additionally proves that Penn indeed leaned on his work since he uses the same formulation in the introduction of his own dictionary. Schönbergers dictionary was thus the framework for the collection of Slovenian words.
Entries in the German-Latin-Slovenian part of the dictionary are listed in alphabetical order of the German alphabet. The German entry is always written first, then Latin, and Slovenian at the end; often, word phrases are presented alongside entries. The first part includes entries from "Aal, ein Fisch, anguilla, A8qKa(xa [Luskaca] (eel)" to "zwöltens, duodecimus, öuavsatrmo [dvanestemo] (twelfth)".
5. "GRSCICA"
Dominik Penn was quite an eccentric among Slovenian lexicographers due to his manner of recording dictionary material. Specifically, he wrote in uniform, well readable writing which is the same throughout the manuscript. He wrote German words in small letters Gothic script; there are no peculiarities in recording. He wrote Latin words in Latin script, for which it is character-istic—as is also stated by Stabej (1975, 47)—that the letter q is always written as g, although a small difference can frequently be noticed between g and q, for example: Aequator 'equator'—circulus aequinoctialis, Adler 'eagle'—aguila, alltäglich 'quotidian'—guotidianus, nicht einmal 'not even'—nec ... guidem, ali-guid = aliquid, acguirere = acquirere, etc. That which connects Dominik Penn's dictionary to Greek is the way he wrote Slovenian words. For that, Penn introduced writing in the Greek alphabet, which earned this writing the name
21 See von Wurzbach (1876), Harrauer-Reitterer (1995).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
97
"grščica". And this is where the peculiarity of Penn's dictionary lies, which made him the biggest character among Slovenian lexicographers.
Why use Greek letters to write down Slovenian words? The period in which Dominik Penn's dictionary was created coincided with a special phenomenon in the history of Slovenian linguistics called the "Slovenian alphabetic war" or "črkarska pravda". It had to do with the polemic that arose among Slovenian linguists as to which script should replace the Bohorič alphabet ("bohoričica") used until then, for which the rules were set by Adam Bohorič,22 the Slovenian Protestant writer and author of the first Slovenian grammar written in Latin Arcticae horulae succissivae (Slo. Zimske urice proste, Eng. Free Winter Hours), which was published in 1584 in Wittenberg. Hence, in the time of Dominik Penn, the Bohorič script had been used for 250 years and in the first third of the 19th century tendencies appeared for the introduction of a new script. Two new alphabets appeared as the competition to the Bohorič alphabet which were suggested by two Slovenian linguists:
-	"dajnčica", the Dajnko alphabet, which was proposed in 1824 by the linguist and religious writer Peter Dajnko (1787-1873) in his work Lehrbuch der windischen Sprache (The Textbook of Slovenian Language),23 and
-	"metelčica", the Metelko alphabet, which was proposed in 1825 as a substitution for the Bohorič alphabet by the Slovenian linguist, writer, and translator Franc Serafin Metelko (1789-1860) in his work Lehrgebaude der slowenischen Sprache in Königreiche Illyrien und in den benachbarten Provinzen (Textbook of the Slovenian Language of Kingdom of Illyria and Neighbouring Provinces) and which enjoyed the support of the renowned Slavicist Jernej Kopitar (1780-1844).24
Each of these alphabets brought something new to the writing of the Slovenian language, yet neither of them asserted itself, primarily due to Slovenian intellectuals of a younger generation, especially the poet France Prešeren (1800-1840) and linguist, literary historian, and critic Matija Čop (17971835); metelčica was thus prohibited in 1833 and dajnčica six years later, in 1839. The Bohorič alphabet therefore remained in use and was supplanted in the mid-19th century by the new Latin alphabet called "gajica", the (Ljude-vit) Gaj alphabet.25 Penn decided to take a completely different path; Marko Jesenšek assumes that the decision for "grščica" was his escape route because he did not want to add to the already strained relations between the defenders and opponents of "danjčica" and eastern-Styrian literary language.26
22	See Ahačič (2013), Ahačič (2007: 69-214).
23	See Kidrič (2013-b), Dajnko (1824), Rajhman (1998), Stabej (2001), Rajh (1998).
24	See Metelko (1825), Kolarič (2013-c), Prijatelj (1935: 84-85, 96, 124-125, 143), Lokar (1957-1958).
25	See Fekonja (1891), Petre (1939), Lenard (1909), Štrekelj (1922).
26	See Jesenšek (1999-b: 369-370), Orel (2017: 260).
98
Matej Hriberšek
For his "grščica" he even had to design the rules for writing. Therefore, at the end of his dictionary, Penn added a special chapter entitled "Empfehlung der griechischen Buchstaben" (Slo. Priporočilo grških črk, Eng. Recommendation of Greek Letters; see Image 4 and Image 5) in which he presented his writing and the system of recording it in a table, while at the same time, he also substantiated his decision in an additional explanation, the main emphasises of which are:
-	once upon a time the Greeks transformed the ancient Slavic letters;
-	the merit of the Greeks is that they simplified the letters;
-	thus, they invented the short and long e, as well as the short and long o, in order for the length of the syllable to be pronounced correctly;
-	they also accepted the soft and sharp s;
-	such writing is useful and inevitably necessary for Slovenian, thus he recommends it for more than one reason.
Image 4: Dominik Penn, Windisch-deutsches Wörter-Buch (1854), p. 81, Empfehlung der griechischen Buchstaben - 1; source: NUK, Ms.
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
99
aw
j
4 Vl-<- t--L

4M. 'tc,T-
jn. m, Ji .

^L, OZ,
<pu
H
t H, /¿int.
■/. A. p, 3.
J, A.
y< r
j'L X-
X.A. n r, y.
■o, j). o, 0. q h
rfj 'r'i *f
a1-, Ji ■ r, Jt ■ A/V, /$> S. cr,]:fit;;,I
yf, Y f&< ^ % sx> Or,
M . ul, U. v, V. u, v c, v

i it.
4}
, St I fa.
Un
Image 5: Dominik Penn, Windisch-deutsches Wörter-Buch (1854), Alfabeticum; source: NUK, Ms.
100
Matej Hriberšek
Dominik Penn's explanation actually does not offer any tangible information why he decided to write Slovenian words in the Greek alphabet. However, two things can be discerned from the afore-stated: that he was, in a similar way to numerous other Slavic experts of his time, convinced that the Slavic alphabet (including the Slovenian) was older than the Greek, and that he found the Greek alphabet useful because it differentiates between the long and short e and the long and short o and the soft and sharp s.
Table 1: Penn's system of writing Slovenian with Greek letters
German	Latin	Slovenian
a, A	a, A	a, A
b, B	b, B	P, B
d, D	d, D	5, A
e, E	e, E	£, E (short)
		n, H (long)
f, F	f, F	9, ®
g, G	g, G	y, r
h, H	h, H	X, X
i, I	i, I	I, I
j, J	j, J	j, J
k, K	k, K	K, K
l, L	l, L	X, A
m, M	m, M	M
n, N	n, N	v, N
o, O	o, O	0, O (short)
		«, H (long)
P, P	P, P	n, n
r, R	r, R	P, P
f, s, S	f, s, S	a, Z (sharp)
		<;, C (soft)
sch, Sch	sh, Sh	aX, Zx (sharp)
		Cx (soft)
t, T	t, T	T, T
u, U	u, U	8, 8
v, V	v, V	u, Y
z, Z	z, Z	Z, z
tsch, Tsch	zh, Zh	zx, zx
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
101
How D. Penn solved problems with the writing and how he adapted the Greek alphabet to write Slovenian words in the so-called grscica:
1.	for the short e he used the Greek epsilon (s, E) and for the long e the Greek letter eta (r|, H);
2.	for the short o he used the Greek omicron (o, O) and for the long e the Greek letter omega (w, O);
3.	the letter s: for the sharp s he uses the normal letter sigma (a, Z) s, for the soft s he used the final Greek sigma (q, C); the capital letter is probably the sigma lunatum, but it could be the Cyrillic s, C (it is not clearly definable from the records);
4.	for the letters z, Z he uses the Greek letter sigma (a, Z);
5.	sibilants—letters c, C, s, S, z, Z he composed from the Greek letters zeta and hi (Zx, Zx) and the combination of letters sigma and hi (sx, Cx, ax, ?x,
Zx);
6.	the letter j, J, for which there is no sign in the Greek alphabet, was taken from the Latin alphabet;
7.	for the letters u, U he did not take the Greek ou, but used the Old Church Slavonic sign uk (8, 8), which replaced the digraph ou;
8.	for the letters v, V he used the Greek upsilon (u, Y).
It is also interesting that he wrote nouns with a capital letter (Image 6), even though there was no special reason for it (it is quite possible that in doing so he was influenced by the German language), while verbs, adjectives, and
Image 6: Dominik Penn, Deutsch-lateinisch-windisches ... Wörter-Buch (1854), p. 16, examples of capital letters; source: NUK, Ms.
102
Matej Hriberšek
other word types were not. For nouns, he never recorded the genitive case or their gender, while for verbs, he always wrote only the basic dictionary form, i.e. the infinitive. The German-Slovenian dictionary includes a few examples of nouns in which he used r instead of the capital letter A; the reason is unknown (it could be a mistake). When writing Slovenian words in the Greek alphabet, he never used diacritic marks and when writing Latin nouns, he frequently added the genitive and gender.
6. VOCABULARY
Dominik Penn was well versed in grammatical rules and spelling tendencies of his time, which is clear from the writing of the vocabulary. Slovenian vocabulary (a more detailed analysis of this has not yet been done for Penn's work, only a few more extensive case studies) in his dictionary can be divided into three groups.
The first group includes words which can be designated as literary and their use was set throughout the entire territory populated by Slovenian-speaking people.
The second group is composed of words which are typically dialectal and were taken by Dominik Penn from his native, Eastern-Styrian dialect; he collected many of these on his own, but had some help in the existing printed sources, among which the Slovensko-nemški in nemško-slovenski slovar, which was published in 1833 by the Slovenian grammarian and lexicographer Anton Murko (1809-1871),27 stands out the most; since many of these words can be found also in other lexicographers who were Dominik Penn's contemporaries, while Slovenian writers often used them in the writing of their books, newspaper as well as periodical articles, it is impossible to determine which were his direct sources. In general, the words taken from dialectal speech Penn characteristically wrote in dialect. A few examples of such dialectal words: Kr|pi [keri] welcher (which); vr|KsSa [nekeda] dereinst, einstmals, einst, ehemals (once);
[p(o)uh] Bilchmaus, Hasselmaus, Rellmaus (dormouse); n8ax [p(o)už] Schnecke (snail); tpo^tti [trofiti] treffen (das Ziel) (to hit, to score); uwaKt, a, o [voski] schmahl, schmal, eng (narrow, tight); etc.
A completely special chapter of Dominik Penn's dictionary is the third group of words, i.e. those words which he made himself as new derivatives; thus, he suggested completely new words for numerous firmly established expressions, such as: Auwp (r|CTTVi [dvor cestni] Bahnhof (= Slo. kolodvor, železniška postaja, Eng. railway station); CwmxuXaK [sopihvlak] Lokomotive (Slo. lokomotiva, Eng. "engine, that puffs" = locomotive); Yr|qvau8K
27 See Murko (1833), Stabej (1975: 50).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
103
[vesnavuk] Universität (Slo. univerza, vseučilišče, Eng. "all-the-knowledge" = university); etc. It is intriguing that he even substituted certain expressions that had been completely established in the literary language with new ones; two among these stand out, which are: "BipKa [birka] Buchstabe", which he used as a substitute for the generally totally established expression "črka" (letter); and "Njiuap [njivar] Bauer, Feldler, Landmann", which he used instead of "kmet" (peasant, farmer). As is generally typical for grammarians of this period, he suggested his own technical terms for some grammatical terms, such as: n£pßsar|ÖKa [perbesedka] Beiwort (adjective); nspatauKa [perstavka] Beiwort (adjective); nspatauXsvKa [perstavlenka] Eigenschaftswort (adjective); noqtwjvKa [postojnka] Strichpunct (semicolon); npnßsanÖKa [prebesedka] Vorwort (preface, foreword); etc.
7. THE SECOND PART OF THE DICTIONARY
The second part is a significantly shorter Slovenian-German dictionary, which has 82 pages and includes somewhat over 10,000 Slovenian words; Penn gave it another lengthy title:
Windisch-deutsches / Wörter-Buch / zum allgemeinen Gebrauche, besonders für / alle Geschäfts-Männer sowohl im weltlichen als / auch im geistlichen Stande in slavischen Ländern, / mit / beträchtlichen Vermehrungen der Wörter in / allen Amts-Geschäften, und heraus gegeben / im Jahre nach Geburt Christi / 1854. / Zweiter Theil.
The Slovenian-German dictionary for general use, especially all businessmen both of secular and clerical status in / Slovenian lands, with a significant increase in words of all business fields and published in the year after Christ's birth 1854. Part two.
This part of the dictionary comprises 82.25 pages and includes entries from "Aßaqx [Abaš], Abt (abbot)" to "(B^ek [Cucek], Mops, ein Hund (mops, cur)". Entries follow each other according to the alphabetical order of the Slovenian alphabet: A - B - A - E, H - O - r - X - I - J - K - A - M - N - O, O - n - P - Z - Cx - T - 8 - Y - Z (Image 7, Image 8). A few examples: Aßaq^ia, Abtei (opatija, Eng. an abbey); AXtap, Altar (oltar, Eng. an altar); A^npiKa, Amerika (Amerika, Eng. America); Baßi(a, Ambos (nakovalo, Eng. an anvil); BaßiZa, Elternmutter (babica, stara mati, Eng. a grandmother); Baßi(a, Hebamme (babica tj. pomočnica pri porodu, Eng. a midwife); BaXwv, Ballon, Luftball (balon, Eng. a baloon); ßati an, befürchten, sich fürchten (bati se, Eng. to fear, to be afraid of); ßXa^w qvnövo, Eßwaren (živila, Eng. provisions);
104
Matej Hriberšek
Image 7: Dominik Penn, Windisch-deutsches Wörter-Buch (1854), p. 1; source: NUK, Ms.
Image 8: Dominik Penn, Windisch-deutsches Wörter-Buch (1854), p. 4; source: NUK, Ms.
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
105
ßXato, Schlamm, Kot (blato, gnoj, Eng. mud, manure); Aoa^vtK, Schüldige, Schüldner (dolžnik, Eng. a debtor); E\£^r|VTi, Elemente (elementi, prvine, Eng. elements); EpSsZxiva, Rothe (rdečina, Eng. a redness); cpöj!, pfui! (fuj!, Eng. yuck!); p8vt, Pfund (funt, Eng. a pound); "y\r|öaTi, schauen, zusehen (gledati, Eng. to watch); Tvjr|aöo Srkati, nisten (gnezditi, delati gnezdo, Eng. to nest); Xripßet, Rücken (hrbet, Eng. a back); Xitavjs, das Eilen (hitenje, Eng. a rush); IaSajausZ, Verräther (izdajalec, Eng. a traitor); JaßÖKa, Apfel (jabolko, Eng. an apple); Kaqxs^, Husten (kašelj, Eng. a cough); Kpiax, Kreuz (križ, Eng. a cross); Aaqtaui^a, Schwalbe (lastovka, Eng. a sparrow); MrjasuZ, Monath, Mond (mesec, Eng. a month); vatoZxiTi, einschenken (natočiti, Eng. to pour); etc. The second part of the dictionary was partly the result of Penn's independent work and collection of material, but the majority of the material was recapped after the published sources presented above and available to him. At the end, he added a simple postscript: "K8vsZ [K(o)unec] (konec, Eng. the end)".
8. SLOVENIAN GRAMMAR
Penn's manuscript is rounded off by his Slovenska slovnica (Slovenische Sprachlehre, Slovenian Grammar), which is written in German and has only 24.25 pages in which, just like in the dictionary, he wrote the entire Slovenian text with Greek letters. As can be discerned from the manuscript, Dominik Penn completed his grammar on the 1 January 1854. At the beginning of the grammar, he wrote an introduction, in which he explained what his purpose in writing a dictionary was and why he had added a grammar to it. First, he draws attention to his dictionary, to which he attributes too great a significance and too excessive a versatile usefulness; then he brings to the forefront the need for mastering the Slovenian language not only for businessmen and priests in the countryside but also in towns. Severe exaggeration is typical for the entire introduction; for one, he states that the number of Slovenian-speaking people in the Austrian monarchy far exceeds the number of all other nations in the monarchy. He explicitly mentions that there are not enough useful grammars for the learning of the Slovenian language; hence, he offers his own grammar to all who wish to perfect their knowledge of Slovenian; with its help, he strives to encourage as many people as possible to learn Slovenian, to perfect their Slovenian, and to use it in their literary endeavours. What he wrote was naturally not true, for from 1800 to the appearance of Dominik Penn's grammar, six Slovenian grammars were printed (Kopitar, Grammatik der Slavischen Sprache in Krain, Kärnten und Steyermark (1808 [1809]; Vodnik, Pismenost ali Gramatika sa Perve Shole (1811); Janez Leopold Smigoc, Theoretisch-praktische Windische Sprachlehre (1812); Peter Dajnko, Lehrbuch der Windischen Sprache (1824); Franc Serafin Metelko, Lehrgebaude
106	Matej Hriberšek
der Slowenischen Sprache im Königreiche Illyrien und in den benachbarten Provinzen (1825); Anton Janez Murko, Theoretisch-praktische Slowenische Sprachlehre für Deutsche (1832)), which in quality and scale surpassed Penn's, yet Penn simply ignored them. Penn in his work leaned most on the grammar by Janez Leopold Smigoc (1787-1829)28 which was entitled Theoretischpraktische Windische Sprachlehre (Theoretical and Practical Slovene Grammar); Penn and Smigoc were schoolmates since they studied together at the university in Graz and were both very active in the Societas Slovenica, which encouraged the use of the Slovenian language, and Slovenian literature and culture. Comparison reveals that Penn's introduction is a plagiarism, since it summarises in an abbreviated form the text J.L. Smigoc wrote at the beginning of his grammar book. He even recaps some of the thoughts from Smigoc's introduction verbatim, but does not quote his source.
Penn's grammar book is very brief; it is divided into ten chapters and only presents the basics of individual word classes: it summarises nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, while the discussion is supplemented by a few examples and inflection patterns (Image 9). In the division of chapters, Penn more than obviously takes after Smigoc's grammar and often presents dialectal forms as examples. A few are:
a) Declensions of the noun AoßpwTviK (benefactor)
	sSivo.		Suwjvo.		uvwyo.
I.	AoßpWTVIK	I.	AoßpwrviKa	I.	AoßpwrviKi
II.	AoßpwrviKa	II.	AoßpWTVIKOU	II.	AoßpWTVIKOU
III.	AoßpWTVIKl	III.	Aoßp«TviKa|	III.	Aoßp«TVlKO|l
IV.	AoßpwrviKa	IV.	AoßpwtviKa	IV	Aoßp«TVlK£
V.	U AoßpWTVIKl	V.	u AoßpwrviKax	V.	u AoßpwrviKax
VI.	a AoßpwrviKO|i	VI.	a Aoßp«TviKa|ia	VI.	a Aoßp«TviKa|ii
b) Declensions of the noun (furnace)
	sSivo.		Suwjvo.		uvwyo.
I.	nnZx	I.	nsZxi	I.	nsZxi
II.	nsZxi	II.	n^xnx	II.	n^xnx
III.	nnZxi	III.	nnzxii	III.	nnzxii
IV.	nnZx	IV.	nsZxi	IV	nsZxi
V.	U nr|ixi	V.	u nsCxni	V.	u n^xnx
VI.	a nsjj	VI.	a nr|íxi|a	VI.	a nsZxii
28 See Strekelj (1922: 15), Kidric (1930: 230 and footnote 274), Glazer (2013-c), Jelovsek (n.d.).
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek	107
c) Cardinal numerals from 1 to 20
1.	rSsv, r|v, r|va, r|vo eins, eine, ein	11.	sSvnj;T eilf
2.	5ua, Su|, Sua zwei	12.	Suav|j;T zwölf
3.	Tpijs, Tpi, Tpi drei	13.	Tpiv|j;T dreizehn
4.	iXTipjs, iXTipi vier	14.	;XTipv|j;T vierzehn
5.	nr|T fünf	15.	nsTvnj;T fünfzehn
6.	^Xn^T sechs	16.	;Xs;Tvnj;T sechszehn
7.	ar|5£v sieben	17.	;sSvnj;T siebzehn
8.	«;sv acht	18.	o;v|j;T achtzehn
9.	Seu|T neun	19.	Ssu£Tvnj;T neuzehn
10.	5«;rT zehn	20.	Suaj;Ti zwanzig
c) Declensions of the personal pronoun for the 3rd person [un 'he']
dritte Person					
I.	öv	I.	öva	I.	öv«
II.	Njnya	II.	Njn	II.	Njnya
III.	Njniio	III.	Nji	III.	Njnio
IV.	Njnya	IV.	Njw	IV.	Njnya
V.	u vjni	V.	u vjnj	V.	u vjni
VI.	a vji|	VI.	a vjwj	VI.	a vjni
Unlike the dictionary, which was directly or indirectly used by Fran Miklošič, Oroslav Caf, Matej Cigale, and Fran Pleteršnik, Dominik Penn's grammar book had no later reaction.
Penn's dictionary and grammar text includes practically no corrections, which indicates that this manuscript was probably already in its clean copy intended for potential printing. Did he intend to publish his dictionary and grammar? Obviously yes, for with the manuscript of the dictionary kept by the National and University Library in Ljubljana (NUK, Ms 1313) a sheet is preserved with a trial print of four dictionary entries meaning that, despite its peculiarity, Penn wanted to publish his dictionary material (Image 10). Why it did not happen is not known; his intention could have been prevented by his death in 1855. It is also not clear whether the sample print was made by Penn himself or any of the subsequent owners of the manuscript.
108
Matej Hriberšek

:,../' A',. ■
*

■MJ'
<T'	j
ta . m. 'ViSf.
III. m.


...........
iU-i A >/«•'■*


......^
iV.JiM^em, V.X. K.J.„.'VA. ' fjJ&jTcei* """ ' • ■	^ /7
'Tf-r«.
j/.
'lej-.X^..,,.
■■;... /V.-/
v?



A A ¿i*,
T. A-7;^ 7/.
III.	M, ir>
IV.	/Vin,-«»
V.	M ur,
VI.	F MtIT.J/
t/uni J va
T. M.vr II. M. <r lil.
IV. M'S-c V. u f/li<rcc%--Vi.s- M ur« p«
tJt'iJyj
J",	£
V.	Mir
VI.	Mi ev-H-W1^
Y', K Mir^X vi. T Ml s* P1
O »T>/V 'y	t-l //'r' 'J / V /v/rl
' - v •>,) / / 0 -J -1 W
-}-■>-■ ti-ji j rf^y^/y-w/ iiiirJivf-iv-v-f^T*** • ' t & ' j-ri -fl-n-yß-TV-'*- t-cL -iA-rt-sl-,1 -ri^i	/ w
i -A /..,*>. </:*„ J>-
/. lic ;To:
Ii. rtsTf
III.	TûfTry
IV.	r*?r»
y. u VoçTCtfj VI. a- Toçraj
J. laSTf
y. T'i^ir m. r°<nrin
IV. Cçx./
y. 11	■
VI. r TosTf}**.
u
V'ST'f
I.
II. Te/nri/x III- Tjsry/i IV.
y. f T7» !=Tryj-
V/.«" Ftsiriff/i
\
a,Y M*n WlSJ/v
r. M«rt
. Il,
m.
)V. M*Tt(
y. u M«rrtçt
VI. f MrtTLÇjtJJ
i M«TÎ.ÇÎ
A
-y*
' ?" y ///. Mcruwy ' /V' M«T~t(i AiA/wfc y^Mircpx-z J'„ VI. 0' hfrnp A'1
M ¿Tift
V.	M«ri( III. M<refj.yt.
'¿¿J IV. »j„ y.u W^fici^
VI.f
y
¡Cr« -'^ry/i
tr//
-U'.ü-'J
irif£ ■ ?r-/r
fyZYS' ÜXfF-H*
0 VMyp
h ip'
ift-IVI'
ïr'/fi"
Image 9: Dominik Penn, Slovenische Sprachlehre (1854), example; source: NUK, Ms.
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
109
iftfjcirtuiig, corroboratio, onis,/\J7o-9£6i)altcit, arcere, prohibere. faavLn
fivtfio, nqtnovrjSarL, yaqSe^a^ati rjvcya.
Image 10: Dominik Penn, sheet with a trial print, preserved in manuscript of the dictionary; source: NUK, Ms.
9. CONCLUSION
Is Dominik Penn's dictionary solely an interesting attempt at creating something special with the intention to avoid potential disputes with the leading linguists of his time and their linguistic directions? We can say for certain that that is not the case. Penn was undoubtedly led by a sincere desire to collect Slovenian vocabulary; the collection of words, which encompasses several hundred pages in manuscript, proves that he collected the material systematically and that his dictionary can be assigned among the greater lexicographic achievements of Penn's time, from which many remained in manuscript (e.g., the dictionary by Ivan Anton Apostel and the dictionary by Mihael Zagajsek); despite the fact that Penn's dictionary was never printed, it was still used by some of the most important Slovenian lexicographers in their work.
By writing the Slovenian language in the Greek alphabet, Penn introduced a new alphabet into the Slovenian territory: "grscica". Did he want to interfere in the polemic regarding the Slovenian alphabet with his unusual manner of recording Slovenian? Almost certainly not, since his intellectual reach was not of an extent that he could have more decidedly influenced the development of the Slovenian language. He did not want to actively touch upon the polemics regarding the use of the alphabet; it remains unknown whether he decided on this independent path, i.e. the writing of the Slovenian language with Greek letters, because he believed that other alphabets did not offer appropriate solutions, or because he did not want to participate in the disputes of his contemporaries, linguists. He could have been an eccentric himself and thus his lexicographic approach could not have been different. There was nobody among his contemporaries who imitated him and used his "grscica"; Penn himself probably never expected it, since writing Slovenian with the "grscica" alphabet would be, despite some of its advantages, simply too complicated and demanding not only due to the rules of writing but also
110	Matej Hriberšek
because the use of such alphabet would have been limited to a very small circle of users, i.e. to those fluent in Greek. All others would have to have learned at least some basics of the language, which was difficult in Penn's time. Namely, Greek was familiar only to those who enrolled in high school, while a knowledge of Greek would have been absolutely unattainable for the wider masses since there were no Slovenian textbooks to learn it from. Everything written about why Penn decided to use "grscica" is simply a speculation, for he never explained and substantiated his decision. It would be of immense help if some kind of legacy were found, such as correspondence or archival material that would shed some light on the background of his work; however, the chances of that are quite slim. Despite the fact that Penn's work did not find an echo in Slovenian literature, that Dominik Penn himself remained fairly unknown in the Slovenian territory, and that his work is considered to be a sort of boutique professional experiment, his dictionary remains an intriguing documentary peculiarity not only in the Slovenian but also wider European territory.
Matej Hribersek University of Ljubljana matej.hribersek@ff.uni-lj.si
ABBREVIATIONS
NUK, Ms: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica (National and University Library), Zbirka
rokopisov, redkih in starih tiskov (Manuscript, Rare and Old Prints Collection). ŠAM: Nadškofijski arhiv Maribor (Archdiocesan Archives Maribor). UKM, Ms: Univerzitetna knjižnica Maribor (University Library Maribor), Enota za domoznanstvo in posebne zbirke (Local History and Special Collections Department).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahačič, Kozma. 2007. Zgodovina misli o jeziku in književnosti na Slovenskem: protestan-tizem. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
Ahačič, Kozma. 2013. "Bohorič, Adam (okoli 1520-po 1598)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accesed November 21, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi145314/#novi-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Barbara Šterbenc Svetina et al., eds., 3. zv.: Ble-But.
Atelšek, Simon. 2013. "Cigale, Matej (1819-1889)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
111
sbii58709/#novi-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Barbara Šterbenc Svetina et al., eds. (online edition).
Bjelčevič, Aleksander, Matija Ogrin, and Urška Perenič, eds. 2017. Rokopisi slovenskega slovstva od srednjega veka do moderne. Simpozij (Symposium) Obdobja 36. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2017.
Breznik, Anton. 1938. "Iz zgodovine novejših slovenskih slovarjev." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 33 (1): 17-32, 87-98, 147-165.
Breznik, Anton. 2013. "Pleteršnik, Maks (1840-1923)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2013. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi435041/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 7. zv.: Peterlin-Pregelj C.
Caf, Oroslav. 1871. "P. Bernardus, capucinus Marburgensis 1760." Slovenski narod 4 (137): 1.
Cankar, Izidor, et al., eds. 1925-1991. Slovenski biografski leksikon. 16 vols. Ljubljana: Zadružna gospodarska banka.
Cigale, Matej. 1860. Deutsch-slovenisches Wörterbuch. Erster Theil, A-L. Zweiter Theil, M-Z. Laibach: Josef Blasnik.
Dajnko, Peter. 1824. Lehrbuch der Windischen Sprache. Ein Versuch zur gründlichen Erlernung derselben für Deutsche, zur vollkommeneren Kenntniß für Slowenen. Grätz: Johann Andreas Kienreich.
Ditmajer, Nina. 2019. Sprejemanje vzhodnoštajerske knjižnojezikovne norme v rokopisnih pridigah Jožefa Muršca. PhD diss., University of Maribor.
Fekonja, Andrej. 1891. "Kratka povestnica slovenskega pravopisa." Ljubljanski zvon 11 (11): 611-618, 668-675, 719-725.
Glaser, Karel. 1896. Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. 2. zv., Od francoske revolucije do 1848 l. Ljubljana: Slovenska Matica.
Glazer, Janko. 2013-a. "Krempl, Anton (1790-1844)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 21, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi303945/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 4. zv.: Kocen-Lužar.
Glazer, Janko. 2013-b. "Murko, Anton (1809-1871)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 23, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi380348/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 6. zv.: Mrkun-Peterlin.
Glazer, Janko. 2013-c. "Šmigoc, Janez Krstnik Leopold (1787-1829)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 16, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/ose-ba/sbi660226/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 11. zv.: Stele-Švikaršič.
Gutsman, Oswald. 1789. Deutsch-windisches Wörterbuch mit einer Sammlung der verdeutschten windischen Stammwörter, und einiger vorzüglichem abstammenden Wörter. Klagenfurt: Ignaz Aloys von Kleinmayr.
Harrauer, Christine, and Hubert Reitterer. 1995. "Schönberger, P. Andreas Corsinus (Franz Xav.) (1754-1820), Lehrer." Österreichisches biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950. Bd. 11 (Lfg. 51), 49-50. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
112
Matej Hriberšek
Hartman, Bruno. 1998. Hoški nadžupnik in dekan dr. Anton Murko (1809-1871), jezikoslovec in utrjevalec slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Hoče: Turistično društvo.
Hriberšek, Matej. 2008. "Slovaropisje klasičnih jezikov na Slovenskem v 16. stoletju." Slavia Centralis 1 (2): 77-87.
Ilešič, Fran. 1905-a. "Korespondenca dr. Jos. Muršca." Zbornik znanstvenih in poučnih spisov 7:1-210.
Ilešič, Fran. 1905-b. Korespondenca dr. Jos. Muršca. Ponatisk iz »Zbornika Matice Slovenske« za l. 1904 in 1905. Ljubljana: Naroda tiskarna.
Ilešič, Fran. 1905-c. "Iz prvih časov romantike." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 2:1-68.
Ilešič, Fran. 1939. "P. Bernard Mariborčan, slovenski pisatelj 18. stoletja." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 34:39-97.
Janežič, Anton. 1858. "Glasnik iz domačih in tujih krajev. Iz Marburga." Glasnik slovenski 10 (2): 172.
Janežič, Anton. 1850. Popolni ročni slovär slovenskega in nemškega jezika./Vollständiges Taschen-Wörterbuch der slovenischen und deutschen Sprache. Nemško-slovenski del./Deutsch-slovenischer Theil. U Celovcu/Klagenfurt: V založbi J. Sigmundove knjigarnice v Celovcu/Im Verlage der J. Sigmund'schen Buchhandlung.
Janežič, Anton. 1851. Popolni ročni slovär slovenskega in nemškega jezika. Vollständiges Taschen-Wörterbuch der slovenischen und deutschen Sprache. Slovensko-nemški del./Slovenisch-deutscher Theil. U Celovcu/Klagenfurt: V založbi J. Sigmundove knjigarnice v Celovcu/Im Verlage der J. Sigmund'schen Buchhandlung.
Jarnik, Urban. 1832. Versuch eines Etymologikons der slowenischen Mundart in InnerÖsterreich. Klagenfurt: Ferdinand Kleinmayr.
Jelovšek, Alenka. n.d. "Janez Krstnik Leopold Šmigoc. Theoretisch-praktische Windische Sprachlehre." In Slovenske slovnice in pravopisi: spletišče slovenskih slovnic in pravopisov od 1584 do danes, edited by Kozma Ahačič. Accessed November 15, 2020. htt-ps://www.fran.si/slovnice-in-pravopisi/13/1812-smigoc.
Jesenšek, Marko, and Bernard Rajh, eds. 1998. Dajnkov zbornik. Zora 3. Maribor: Slavistično društvo.
Jesenšek, Marko, ed. 1999-a. Murkov zbornik: Referati s Simpozija Anton Murko in njegov čas. Maribor: Slavistično društvo.
Jesenšek, Marko. 1999-b. "Slovaropisje na Štajerskem do konca 19. stoletja." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 70 (1-2): 355-371.
Jesenšek, Marko. 2015. Poglavja iz zgodovine vzhodnoštajerskega jezika. Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora 110. Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta.
Kacin, Anton. 2013. "Cigale, Matej (1819-1889)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi158709/fprimorski-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Primorski slovenski biografski leksikon, 3. snopič: Bor-Čopič, 1. knjiga. Gorica: Goriška Mohorjeva družba, 1976.
Kidrič, France. 1929. Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. Od začetkov do marčne revolucije. Razvoj, obseg in cena pismenstva, književnosti in literature. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
Kidrič, France. 1930. Dobrovsky in slovenski preporod njegove dobe. Razprave Znanstvenega društva v Ljubljani 7, Historični odsek 1. Ljubljana: J. Blasnika nasl. Univerzitetna tiskarna.
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek	113
Kidrič, France. 1934-a. "Ustanovitev slovenske stolice v Ljubljani." Ljubljanski zvon 54:208-215, 300-307, 374-382.
Kidrič, France. 1934-b. Korespondenca Janeza Nepomuka Primca 1808-1813. Korespondence pomembnih Slovencev 1. Ljubljana: Znanstveno društvo.
Kidrič, France. 2013-a. "Apostel, Ivan Anton (1711-1784)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi130201/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 1. zv.: Abraham-Erberg.
Kidrič, France. 2013-b. "Dajnko, Peter (1787-1873)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 22, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi168756/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 1. zv.: Abraham-Erberg.
Kidrič, France. 2013-c. "Pen, Dominik (1785-1855)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 22, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/os-eba/sbi411625/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 6. zv.: Mrkun-Peterlin.
Kolarič, Rudolf. 2013-a. "Caf, Oroslav (1814-1874)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 15, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi154664/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 1. zv.: Abraham-Erberg.
Kolarič, Rudolf. 2013-b. "Cigale, Matej (1819-1889)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi158709/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 1. zv.: Abraham-Erberg.
Kolarič, Rudolf. 2013-c. "Metelko, Franc Serafin (1789-1860)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 22, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/os-eba/sbi363425/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 5. zv.: Maas-Mrkun.
Kotnik, Fran. 1919. "'Sprotuletna Vijolica,' mariborski dijaški list iz leta 1846." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 15 (1): 114-126.
Legiša, Lino. 1959. Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. 2. zv., Romantika in realizem I. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
Lenard, Leopold. 1909. "Dr. Ljudevit Gaj." Dom in svet 22:427-428, 472-475, 517-519,
558-569.
Logar, Janez. 2013. "Megiser, Hijeronim (med 1554 in 1555-1619)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 22, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/os-eba/sbi357106/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 5. zv.: Maas-Mrkun.
Lokar, Jože. 1957-1958. "Dve stoletnici." Jezik in slovstvo 3 (3): 102-109.
Macun, Ivan. 1883. Književna zgodovina Slovenskega Štajerja. Graz: printed by the author.
114	Matej Hriberšek
Medved, Anton. 1895. "Anton Krempl." Dom in svet 8 (21): 641-643.
Megiser, Hieronymus. 1744. Dictionarium quatuor linguarum videlicet Germanicae, Latinae, Illyricae (quae vulgo Sclavonica) & Italicae, sive Hetruscae. Auctore Hieronymo Megisero Impressum Graecii Styriae à Ioanne Fabro ... nunc vero aus-piciis Excellentisiimi Domini, Domini Supremi Carinthiae Capitanei Opera & Studio A.A. R.R. P.P. Societ. JESUCollegii Clagenfurtensis correctum & auctum. Clagenfurti: typis Ioannis Friderici Kleinmayr.
Metelko, Franc Serafin. 1825. Lehrgebaude der slowenischen Sprache in Königreiche Illyrien und in den benachbarten Provinzen: Nach dem Lehrgebäude der böhm. Sprache des Hrn. Abbé Dobrowsky. Laibach: Leopold Eger.
Murko, Anton. 1832-1833. Çlovénsko-némshki in némshko-^lovénski rozhni beséd-nik, srâven kràtke slovénske gramâtike sa Némze: kakor se slovénshina govori na Çhtâjerskim, Koroshkim, Krâjnskim in v'sahodnih stranih na Vôgerskim. Çlovénsko-némshki dél. V' Gradzi: v' salogi in na prodaj per Fr. Ferstli: Janes Lavre Greiner.
Orel, Irena. 2017. "Pomen starejših rokopisov za slovensko zgodovinsko jezikoslovje." In Aleksander Bjelčevič et al., eds., 253-266.
Pajek, Jožef. 1880. "Dr. Anton Murko. Životopis. Sestavil dr. Jož. Pajek." Letopis Matice Slovenske za leto 1880, edited by Dr. Janez Bleiweis, 224-257. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska.
Petrè, Fran. 1939. Poizkus ilirizma pri Slovencih (1835-1849). Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
Pirjevec, Avgust. 1924. "Maks Pleteršnik." Ljubljanski zvon 44 (4): 240-244, 304-311,
361-371.
Pleteršnik, Maks, ed. (1893) 1894-1895. Slovensko-nemški slovar. Izdan na troške rajnega knezoškofa ljubljanskega Antona Alojzija Wolfa. Prvi del, A-O. Drugi del, P-Ž. V Ljubljani: Knezoškofijstvo (Katoliška tiskarna).
Pohlin, Marko. 1792. Glossarium Slavicum in supplementum ad primam partem Dictionarii Carniolici. Viennae: Literis Grosserianis.
Pohlin, Marko. 1781. Tu malu besedishe treh jesikov. Das ist: Das kleine Wörterbuch in dreyen Sprachen. Quod est: parvum dictionarium trilingue, quod conscripsit R. P. Marcus a S. Antonio Paduano Augustinianus discalceatus inter academicos operosos Labacenses dictus: Novus. Laibach: Johann Friedrich Eger.
Prijatelj, Ivan. 1935. Duševni profili slovenskih preporoditeljev. Za šestdesetletnico izdali Prijateljevi učenci. Ljubljana: s.n.
Prunč, Erich. 1983. "Primic Janez Nep." Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950. Bd. 8:281. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Raič, Božidar. 1869. "A. Kremplj." Nârodni koledar, Sporočilo in Letopis Matice Slovenske za leto 1869:86-94. Ljubljana: Jožef Blaznik.
Raič, Božidar. 1878. "Oroslav Caf." Letopis Matice slovenske 3-4:72-101.
Rajh, Bernard, ed. 1998. Dajnkovo berilo. Maribor: Slavistično društvo.
Rajhman, Jože. 1998. "Dajnkov jezikovni nazor." In Marko Jesenšek and Bernard Rajh, eds., 57-69.
Scheller, Immanuel Johann Gerhard, G. H. Lünemann and Franz Xaver Schönberger. 1818-1820. Imm. Joh. Gerb. Schellers lateinisch-deutsches und deutsch-lateinisches Hand-Lexikon vornehmlich für Schulen, von neuen durchgesehen, verbessert und vermehrt durch G. H. Lünemann, Doctor der Philosophie, und Lehrer der griechischen und lateinischen Sprache am Gymnasio zu Göttingen, zu einem allgemeineren Gebrauche mit beträchtlichen Vermehrungen herausgegeben von Franz
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
115
Xaver Schönberger. 3 Bände. Wien und Triest: im Verlage der Geistinger'schen Buchhandlung.
Slodnjak, Breda. 2013. "Primic, Janez Nepomuk (1785-1823)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/ose-ba/sbi470396/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 8. zv.: Pregelj Ivan-Qualle.
Stabej, Jože. 1972. "Janez Anton Apostel-pater Bernard: Dictionarium Germanico-Slavonicum 1760." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 43:263-274.
Stabej, Jože. 1975. "Slovarnik Vid (Dominik) Penn." Slavistična revija 23 (1): 41-58.
Stabej, Marko. 2001. "Peter Danjko in njegova dajnčica." Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, edited by Janez Cvirn et al., 160. Ljubljana: Nova revija.
Šlebinger, Janko. 2013. "Macun, Ivan (1821-1883)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 15, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi337395/#slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Izidor Cankar et al., eds., 5. zv.: Maas-Mrkun.
Šrimpf, Franc. 1972. "Oroslav Caf, slovenski sanskrtist, filolog in tragična osebnost." Dialogi 8:498-515.
Šterbenc Svetina, Barbara et al., eds. 2013-. Novi Slovenski biografski leksikon. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Štrekelj, Karel. 1922. Historična slovnica slovenskega jezika. Maribor: Zgodovinsko društvo, Družba sv. Mohorja.
Šumrada, Janez. 2002. "Janez Nepomuk Primic in ustanovitev stolice za slovenski jezik na liceju v Gradcu 1811." Slavistična revija 50 (1): 51-60.
Toš, Marjan. 2014. "Ob 200-letnici rojstva in 140-letnici smrti Oroslava (Jurija) Cafa, slovenskogoriškega rojaka od Svete Trojice." Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 85=50 (4): 5-18.
Vidmar, Luka. 2013. "Apostel, Ivan Anton (1711-1784)." Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/ sbi130201/#novi-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. First published in Barbara Šterbenc Svetina et al., eds., 1. zv.: A.
Vrbanov, J. G. 1898. "Dr. Jožef Muršec. (Životopis. Spisal J. G. Vrbanov)." Slovenske Večernice za pouk in kratek čas 51:1-64.
von Wurzbach, Constantin. 1872. "Primiz, Johann Nepomuk." Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich 23:309-310.
von Wurzbach, Constantin. 1876. "Schönberger, Franz Xaver." Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich 31:127-128.
116	Matej Hriberšek
POVZETEK
Na presečišču med slovenščino in grščino: leksikograf Dominik Penn in njegovo delo
Vid Penn se je rodil v vasi Sveti Vid pri Ptuju 5. maja 1785; po končani osnovni šoli in nato gimnaziji v Mariboru ter dvoletnem študiju filozofije je študiral teologijo na Univerzi v Gradcu (1810-1814). Tam se je pridružil Slovenskemu društvu (Societas Slovenica), katerega člani so se posvečali ohranjanju in raziskovanju slovenskega jezika; v tem času je vstopil v red minoritov in si izbral redovno ime Dominik. Kot duhovnik je deloval na ožjem območju Ptuja in njegove okolice na župnijah, ki so jih upravljali minoriti. Umrl je na Ptuju 14. aprila 1855.
Dolgo je bilo Pennovo slovarsko delo znano le redkim izobražencem in slovaropi-scem: Franu Miklošiču, Jožefu Muršču, Maksu Pleteršniku, Antonu Janežiču, Oroslavu Cafu, Božidarju Raču in Mateju Cigaletu. Njegov slovar je nastajal v obdobju med letoma 1824 in 1854. Obsega skupno 590 strani, razdeljen pa je na tri dele. Prvi del je nemško-la-tinsko-slovenski slovar, ki obsega 471 strani; iz Pennove spremne besede izvemo, kaj je bil neposredni povod za delo in zakaj se je zanj odločil. Za osnovo slovarja je Penn izbral delo avstrijskega šolnika Andreasa Corsinusa (Franza Xaverja) Schönbergerja, in sicer njegovo priredbo Scheller-Lünemannovega Latinsko-nemškega in nemško-latinskega slovarja (Imm. Joh. Gerb. Schellers lateinisch-deutsches und deutsch-lateinisches Hand-Lexikon), ki je izhajal na Dunaju v letih 1818-1820. Slovarska gesla v tem delu slovarja so razporejena po abecednem vrstnem redu nemške abecede; vedno je najprej napisano nemško geslo, sledi mu latinsko in na koncu slovensko, pogosto pa so pri geslih predstavljene tudi besedne zveze. Nemško besedilo je Penn zapisoval s pisano gotico, latinske besede v latinici, za zapisovanje slovenskih besed pa je uvedel zapisovanje z grškimi črkami in tega črkopisa se je oprijelo ime grščica; zanjo je pripravil tudi poseben sistem zapisovanja z grškimi črkami (a, A; ß, B; 5, A; e, E; r|, H; 9, O; y, T; x, X; 1, I; j, J; K, K; A; |i, M; v, N; o, O, «, H; n, n; p, P; a, Z, ;, C, ax, Zx, ;x, Cx; t, T; 8, 8; u, Y; Z, Z; Zx, Zx), črko j, J je prevzel iz latinice, iz stare cerkvene slovanščine pa je prevzel črko uk (8, 8), ki je nadomestila dvočrkje ou. Slovensko besedje v slovarju lahko razdelimo na tri skupine: v prvi skupini so besede, ki jih lahko označimo kot knjižne, drugo skupino tvorijo besede, ki jih lahko opredelimo kot tipično narečne, v tretjo skupino pa besede, ki so Pennove novotvorjenke,
Drugi del je slovensko-nemški slovar, ki je znatno krajši; obsega le 82 strani. Slovarska gesla si sledijo po abecednem vrstnem redu slovenske abecede (A - B - A - E, H - O - r - X - I - J - K - A - M - N - O, H - n - P - Z - Cx - T - 8 - Y - Z). Zbrano besedje je rezultat deloma Pennovega samostojnega dela, velik del gradiva pa je zbral iz že natisnjenih jezikovnih virov.
Pennov rokopis zaključuje kratka, v nemščini napisana Slovenska slovnica (Sloveni-sche Sprachlehre), ki obsega 24 strani, z uvodom, povzetim iz uvoda, ki ga je napisal Janez Leopold Šmigoc k svoji Theoretisch-praktische Windische Sprachlehre; v njem je pojasnil, zakaj se je lotil priprave slovarja in zakaj mu je dodal tudi slovnico. Ta je razdeljena na deset poglavij, v katerih na kratko predstavi posamezne besedne vrste.
Rokopis Pennnovega slovarja nima skoraj nobenih popravkov, kar nakazuje, da je verjetno šlo že za čistopis, pripravljen za morebitni natis. Penn je slovar očitno nameraval natisniti in objaviti, kar potrjuje tudi listič, ohranjen na koncu rokopisa, s poskusno tiskarsko postavitvijo in natisom štirih slovarskih gesel; namero mu je najbrž preprečila njegova smrt
Dominik Penn, Lexicographer at the Intersection of Slovenian and Greek
117
leta 1855. Delo Dominika Penna ostaja razmeroma slabo znano in precej pozabljeno tako v zgodovini slovenske književnosti kot tudi v zgodovini slovenskega slovaropisja; v znanstveni in strokovni literaturi najdemo o njem le dva prispevka ter nekaj krajših omemb. Vendar pa ostaja njegov slovar prav zaradi grščice, ki jo je uvedel, zanimiva dokumentarna posebnost ne le v slovenskem, ampak tudi v širšem evropskem prostoru.
ABSTRACT
Although the Slovenian language is relatively small, Slovenian lexicography has quite a rich history and tradition reaching right back to the 16th century. Until the 19th century, writers who made dictionaries and collections of Slovenian vocabulary prepared a fair amount of admirable works, albeit many remained in manuscript and have never been printed. In the 19th century, the study of the Slovenian language, efforts to preserve it, and the collecting of Slovenian linguistic material spread outside the central Slovenian land of Carni-ola; in Styria in particular, young intellectuals from those parts, such as Leopold Volkmer (1741-1816), Janez Krstnik Leopold Šmigoc (1787-1829), Peter Dajnko (1787-1873), Anton Krempl (1790-1844), and others, provided for the collecting of linguistic material alongside their literary endeavours; one of them was Friar Minor Dominik Penn. He was a fascinating lexicographer who included Greek in his work in a very unusual way.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, Dominik Penn, grščica, Slovenian dictionaries, lexicography
IZVLEČEK
Slovensko slovaropisje ima glede na to, da je slovenščina razmeroma majhen jezik, precej bogato zgodovino in tradicijo, ki sega vse tja do 16. stoletja. Pisci, ki so pripravljali slovarje in zbirke slovenskega besedja, so do 19. stoletja ustvarili kar nekaj zanimivih in obsežnih del. A večina jih je ostala v rokopisu in niso bila nikoli natisnjena. V 19. stoletju se je raziskovanje slovenskega jezika, skrb zanj in zbiranje slovenskega jezikovnega gradiva razmahnilo tudi zunaj osrednje slovenske dežele Kranjske; zlasti na Štajerskem so tamkajšnji mladi intelektualci (na primer Leopold Volkmer (1741-1816), Janez Krstnik Leopold Šmigoc (1787-1829), Peter Dajnko (1787-1873), Anton Krempl (1790-1844)) ob literarnem ustvarjanju skrbeli tudi za zbiranje jezikovnega gradiva; mednje spada tudi minorit Dominik Penn, izjemno zanimiv slovaropisec, ki je na nenavaden način v svoje delo vpletel grščino.
Ključne besede: stara grščina, Dominik Penn, grščica, slovenski slovarji, leksikografija
DOI: https://d0i.0rg/10.4312/keria.22.2.119-139
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
1. INTRODUCTION
It is undeniable that Modern Greek is in some way a continuation of Ancient Greek of some 2500 years earlier. Admittedly, there is controversy among linguists, Hellenists, and Greeks themselves as to the extent of "continuity" of the Greek language across time and even what the notion of continuity could mean and does mean in practical terms. For instance, is Greek one language across all its history, as Browning (1983: vii) claims, or not, as Hamp (2003: 67) counters? Nonetheless, whatever continuity might mean in the case of Greek, it is clear that there is an overwhelming presence of Ancient Greek vocabulary in the modern language, so that there is a bidirectional relationship between ancient and modern forms of the language. That is, given a particular Ancient Greek word, it is possible to predict what it should look like in Modern Greek, assuming it continues into the modern language; similarly, with a given Modern Greek word, it is possible to determine the Ancient Greek form or forms that are possible starting points for the modern form.
Our position, taken up without ideology or politics behind it, is that the recognition of this shared vocabulary and this bidirectionality of the relationship between modern and ancient forms can be a tool for introducing Classicists to the modern language, and for allowing the student of Modern Greek to gain a foothold in the study of Ancient Greek. This issue has some significance in the United States at least, and maybe elsewhere, since there is often a large gulf between classicists and Neo-Hellenists and thus between the study of Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. This is so even though many Modern Greek language and studies programs are housed within Classics departments. But this issue also has interest and significance for Greeks today,
120
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
again without reference to ideology or politics, for it encourages one to think about the extent of Ancient Greek in the modern language. In a certain sense, it is the linguistic analogue to the presence of antiquities in modern cities; it is as inescapable a fact about Modern Greek as the Acropolis is an inescapable fact about the skyline of Athens.
In taking this position, we recognize that there are various intellectual precedents to our view. The value of Modern Greek for the student of the ancient language is affirmed by the many classicists who have studied the modern language and benefitted from the bidirectionality referred to above.1 Moreover, it was a favorite theme of Albert Thumb, Nicholas Bachtin, George Thomson, and Robert Browning, among other distinguished classicists.
The enthusiasm of such scholars for the modern language was in a general way a reaction against skepticism that some classicists have held towards Modern Greek; Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, said the following about linguistic decline: "It was subtle of God to speak Greek, and to speak it so poorly." Indeed, the ideology of decline is a part of the history of the study and characterization of the Greek language from the Hellenistic period and the Roman Atticist movement right up to the emergence of katharevousa in the 19th century and the resulting diglossia throughout most of the 20th century; for instance, Adamantios Korais, the 18th- and 19th-century leading Greek intellectual, considered the absence of an infinitive in Modern Greek to be "the most frightful vulgarity of our language", and Jakob Phillip Fallmerayer, the 19th-century German historian, said that "Eine Sprache ohne Infinitiv ist nicht viel besser als ein menschlicher Korper ohne Hand". By contrast, George Derwent Thomson, a key 20th century English classicist, remarking on the views of a colleague who said "I started once to learn some Modern Greek, but when I found they use the genitive instead of the dative, I felt affronted and had to give it up," had the following reaction: "This is only an extreme case of that disdain for reality which has done so much to lower the prestige of classical studies."2
Accordingly, continuing along the path of such scholars as Thumb, Bachtin, Thomson, and Browning, we outline here a program by which the ancient language can be used as a stepping stone for the learning of Modern Greek, thereby introducing Modern Greek to classicists.
1	We three authors are evidence, living proof as it were, of this affirmation, as we all started in Hellenic studies via the ancient language.
2	See Fallmerayer (1845: 451), Triantafyllidis (1938: 452), Thomson (1951), Joseph (1985: 90), Mack-ridge (2009: 118).
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
121
2. MODERN GREEK FOR CLASSICISTS: A PROGRAMMATIC VIEW
We believe that it is possible to introduce Modern Greek to classicists in a way that is based on exploiting Ancient Greek as much as possible. Thus, in introducing classicists to the modern language, we start with words that can be used without explaining any pronunciation rules concerning Modern Greek spelling or any differences in meaning of these words and thus, without needing to adjust for all the changes in phonology, morphology, and semantics that have occurred between Ancient and Modern Greek. These words can be referred to as carry-overs (or "matches" or "matching forms"), and recognizing them allows for an easy and relatively "painless" transition for the classics student from Ancient Greek into Modern Greek.
An example of how Modern Greek can be introduced into teaching of the Ancient language is the dialogue below—the content is certainly less than compelling, as it is constrained by the scope of the carry-overs, and the phonological matches are, at least under some interpretations, not exact. In addition, some of the words in the dialogue would require different use of diacritical marks if written according to the Modern Greek orthography, so that it needs to be written in capital letters. Nonetheless, it is a starting point:
(1)	A: HENE! MONOZ; TO ONOMA ZOY;
Foreigner! Alone? Your name?
B: AAEHANAPOZ. TO ONOMA ZOY;
Alexander. Your name?
A: OYPANIA. nOY MENETE, AAEHANAPE;
Ourania. Where do you stay, Alexander?
B: nPOZ ZAAAMINA.
Towards Salamina.
A: TI niNETE;
What do you drink?
B: MEAI.
Honey.
The last line of the dialogue can be modified with alternative answers such as the following:
(2)	B: NEKTAP./nOAAA nOTA.
Nectar./Many drinks.
122
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
Furthermore, there are loanwards which could be used in an introductory lesson to Modern Greek as well, without additional explanations of their meaning and pronunciation. These loanwords can be read correctly even with the knowledge of the Ancient Greek alphabet and are likely to be understood by classicists due to the similarities these words show with words in familiar modern languages of Europe.3 Therefore, the last line in passage (1) can be replaced with one of the following answers:
(3)	B: KOKA KOAA./TZAI./ZOKOAATA. Coca cola./Tea./Chocolate.
Additional examples of dialogues consisting of words that can be understood by classicists on the basis of their language skill in Ancient Greek are given in passages (4)-(6):
(4)	A: TI NEA; What is new?
B: EnEZE NEKPOZ. He fell dead (= He died).
(5)	A: EnEZEZ; You fell?
B: MAAIZTA. Yes, indeed.
(6)	A: nOY EnEZEZ; Where did you fall? B: KATH. Down.
Of these passages, (1) in particular contains words that are usually taught in Ancient Greek classes and whose Modern Greek meaning and pronunciation show no significant difference with respect to their ancient Greek origins, e.g., the verb forms MENETE and nINETE and the noun forms MEAI, ONOMA and HENE. Therefore, such words are likely to be recognized by classicists even when used in Modern Greek spoken discourse. Passages (2)-(6), however, also use some readily recognizable verbs, e.g. EnEZEZ/EnEZE, but also introduce
3 We realize of course that classicists need not be familiar with modern Western European languages, but in practical terms, it is more likely than not that they will be.
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity	123
words that may be readily recognizable by classicists even though they do not have phonological and semantic matches in Modern Greek. The word ^dXiata, used in passage (5), has a different meaning in Modern Greek from that in the ancient language (AG 'most' vs. MG 'yes indeed'), but (roughly) the same pronunciation in Ancient and in Modern Greek. Furthermore, the word Katw 'down' in passage (6) has the same written form in Ancient and in Modern Greek and is therefore likely to be recognized by students of the ancient language, even though its pronunciation in Ancient Greek was different from that in the modern language in terms of the length of the final vowel w (AG [o], MG [o]).
These examples show that it is possible to find Ancient Greek words with semantic and phonological matches in the modern language (i.e., the carry-overs)—and to arrange them into plausible Modern Greek clauses and even dialogues; such words are not very frequent and in composing plausible Modern Greek clauses and dialogues from the stock of common Ancient/Modern Greek vocabulary, it is difficult to avoid Modern Greek words that display various semantic and phonological differences with regard to their ancient Greek counterparts, as is the case with the words ^dXiata and Katw. Furthermore, some ancient words that might be useful in the dialogues such as above (e.g., uSwp 'water, oivo; 'wine') are not used at all in Modern Greek (or are rare, archaic forms) and thus are not useful in this context. Moreover, some Modern Greek words originating from the ancient language are unlikely to be recognized and understood by classicists; for instance, Modern Greek words for water (vepo) and wine (Kpaai).4 And finally, while some loanwords may be understood by classicists, as suggested in passage (3), this is clearly not always the case; for instance, it is unlikely that using the word tainoupo 'raki' in passage (1) would be effective.
Therefore, differences between Ancient and Modern Greek have to be introduced at an early stage of teaching Modern Greek to classicists well— as is expected given that Ancient and Modern Greek are two distinct stages of the language—and this phase cannot come much later than the original phase, which focuses on similarities between Modern Greek and its ancient predecessor. Nevertheless, our approach shows classicists that by learning the ancient language, they have also learned some Modern Greek as well. This ought, therefore, to shed a different light for them on the relation between the two phases of the language. Furthermore, our program differs from previous approaches to teaching Modern Greek to classicists (e.g., Laiou 2011, Kavagia 2009, Kolokouris 2020). None of these textbooks appear to be aware that such similarities between Ancient and Modern Greek exist and can provide a basis for teaching Modern Greek to classicists.
4 The former word originates from earlier vr|pov (AG veapov) modifying an understood uSwp, thus 'fresh water', and the latter from Kpaai; 'mixture'; LKN, s.vv. vepo and Kpaai.
124
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
In what follows we further explain basic concepts of our approach to teaching Modern Greek to classicists, and provide statistical data in support of it.
3. BASIC CONCEPTS
Many of the basic concepts associated with this approach, although introduced in previous sections, require further discussion and exemplification. We address these concepts in the subsections that follow.
3.1 Carry-overs
The concept of carry-overs goes back to Joseph (2009: 369), who observed that some words have remained "more or less intact over the years"; examples including avs^oq 'wind' and aWoq 'other. This concept contrasts with views that no Ancient Greek words are preserved in the modern language without having undergone significant phonological and/or morphological change (cf. Pappas and Moers 2011: 212), a defensible position, given that the realization of accent has changed in almost all words (see below), but one we do not fully embrace.5
Carry-overs are only those Ancient Greek words that that are preserved in Modern Greek and do not contain sounds that underwent significant phonological change; a listing of the sounds that have changed is given in (7), with an indication of their ancient pronunciation where appropriate: 6
(7) - long vowels
-	short u [u]
-	(long and short) diphthongs
-	voiced stops p [b], 5 [d], y [g]
-	(voiceless) aspirated stops 9 [th], x [kh], ^ [ph]
-	the aspirate [h]
-	double (geminate) consonants
-	the consonant p [r]
5	See also Wilson, Pappas, and Moers (2019: 598-599), Petrounias (1998: xxii), Manolessou (2013).
6	For an overview of phonological developments, see, for instance, Horrocks (2010: 160-163). The consonant p is not usually mentioned among the consonants that underwent significant phonological change. See, however, the discussion in Allen (1974: 39), which speaks against the equivalence of this consonant in Ancient and in Modern Greek.
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity	125
Furthermore, these are words that did not undergo morphological reshaping, as was the case with feminine and masculine nouns of the 3rd declension (e.g., ^uXa^ vs. MG ^uXaKaq), with the present stem of many verb (e.g., AG ^avGavw vs. MG ^aGaivw; AG n\r|P°w vs. MG n\r|p^vw).7 As to the meaning, carry-overs must have the same meaning in Ancient and in Modern Greek. In this respect we follow etymologies of LKN (Ab^iko Tyq Koiv/q NeoeXXyviK/q) and thus, the proposal of Petrounias (2010: 315), who has suggested that these etymologies can be a basis for identifying words that "are equivalent" in Ancient and in Modern Greek. Words with the same meaning in Ancient and in Modern Greek are represented in etymologies of LKN without explicit references to their meaning in Ancient and Modern Greek (see Petrounias 1998: xxii). An example is the etymology of the Modern Greek verb aiaGavo^ai, which shows that the verb originates from the corresponding verb (with the written form aiaGavo^ai) in the ancient language:
(8) [Aoy. < apx. aladavo^ai]
[learn. < AG aladavo^ai]
In addition to suggesting that there is no significant difference in meaning between this verb in Ancient and in Modern Greek, this etymology also indicates that, rather than being directly inherited from Ancient Greek, the verb originates from the learned tradition (X07.) or katharevousa. This is the origin of a significant part of Modern Greek words with the Ancient Greek origin (cf. Petrounias 1998: xxii, Joseph 2009: 369). It is therefore worth stressing that the term carry-over can be misleading inasmuch it may seem to imply that the words fulfilling the aforementioned phonological and semantic criteria were inherited directly from Ancient Greek. Thus, a different terminology seems appropriate. We use the (admittedly somewhat cumbersome) term homopho-nographoseme as a synonymous, but more neutral term than carry-overs, in reference to words that have (roughly) the same meaning, pronunciation and the written form in Ancient and in Modern Greek regardless of whether they have entered Modern Greek from the learned tradition or were inherited directly from the ancient language.
In determining homophonographosemes, one also needs to take into account the change of the accent from pitch to stress. An accented word, even if fulfilling all the aforementioned criteria cannot be a true carry-over because of the different nature of the accent in Ancient and in Modern Greek. There is the possibility that unaccented words (proclitics or enclitics) are legitimate carry-overs, an example being the Modern Greek preposition ev 'in'. This word belongs to the Modern Greek learned vocabulary and cannot be taken as true
7 See also Joseph (2009: 369).
126
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
carry-over in the sense of a word inherited from Ancient Greek—as noted, the term homophonographoseme is much more appropriate in such cases. It is, however, one of the lemmas in LKN and is therefore a part of the Modern Greek lexicon. Furthermore, it consists of phonemes that do not seem to have undergone any significant change; at least, they are not usually mentioned among such phonemes.8 It also needs to be mentioned that the pronunciation of the vowel £ may not have been the same in Ancient Greek as it is today. According to Allen (1974: 60), this vowel was in Classical Greek "rather like" the vowel e in English pet, whereas Modern Greek £ (also ai) is "anything rather than more open than the vowel of English pet". According to Sturtevant (1940: 33, 47), however, £ was a rather close vowel. This is because £ + £ contracts to £i [e:] rather than n [£:], and £i [e:] is also the result of the secondary lengthening of £. If £ was an open-mid vowel, as is the case in Modern Greek, one would expect the result of all these processes to be n rather than £i. Therefore, if one follows Allen (loc. cit.), unaccented words such as the preposition ev are true carry-overs, even if adopted from the learned tradition. This is not the case, however, if one follows Sturtevant (loc. cit.).
Another potential class of true carryovers are words that are regularly accented with the grave accent—provided that they also fulfill the rest of the aforementioned phonological and semantic criteria. According to one interpretation, this accent mark represents the lack of the accent because in an earlier orthographic system, it was used to mark any unaccented syllable (Allen 1974: 115, Tsantsanoglou 2001: 988-989). If this is the case, then a Modern Greek word that may have an exact match in the ancient language is the plural form of the definite article ta, as it is typically accented in Ancient Greek texts with the grave accent and is unaccented in Modern Greek.
This means that owing to the loss of the pitch accent, no Ancient Greek word would have its exact phonological and semantic match in the modern language, with a few potential exceptions. Nonetheless, with regard to accent, the concept of carry-overs proves to be useful in practical, pedagogical terms, precisely the focus of the present study (whatever the theoretical interest of such carry-overs might be). This is because, according to Allen (1974: 136), the Ancient Greek accent is typically rendered with stress (not the pitch of the ancient accentuation) in pedagogical practice, and this is the case "even in countries where the native language has a tonal system of accentuation (as e.g. in Yugoslavia and Norway)."9 In other words, the change in the nature of
8	See also footnote 6.
9	For the same view, see Petrounias (2001: 954). Allen's view is oversimplified because it assumes one native language in the former Yugoslavia. It is correct, however, in the respect that in the former Yugoslavia, the tonal accent was not adopted in pronunciation of Ancient Greek. For instance, this was never the case in Slovenia, although some Slovenian dialects retain the pitch accent—which could in principle, for such speakers, make it possible to adopt this accent type in pronunciation of Ancient Greek.
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
127
the accent does not mean that words with semantic and phonological matches in Modern Greek (i.e., carry-overs) are not a part of the vocabulary learned in Ancient Greek classes. Moreover, in any case, such words will be readily recognizable in their written form.
As a result of these considerations, one needs to distinguish between different classes of carry-overs, representing different degrees of strictness regarding adherence to the criteria:
1.	Potential examples of carry-overs (homophonographosemes) in the strictest sense, i.e. Ancient Greek words with phonological and semantic matches in Modern Greek. These are words consisting only of sounds that appear not to have changed, and are written with the consonant letters k, X, p, v,
n, a, t, ty, without any doubling, as well as with vowels a and 1 (or a/i), unless the latter two letters represent long vowels (e.g., Ta). Furthermore, these words are unaccented in both Ancient and Modern Greek.
2.	Accented carry-overs, consisting of the same sounds as true carry-overs. The Ancient and the Modern Greek words differ in terms of the nature of the accent. In pronouncing the accent, however, teaching practice is much closer to Modern than to Ancient Greek. Therefore, when learned in a typical Ancient Greek class, these words appear to have direct phonological and semantic matches in Modern Greek. Examples include Ti 'what', KaTa 'against/according to', pia 'one' (f./sg.), KaKa 'bad' (n./pl.).
3.	Accented carry-overs, including those containing the vowels s/ai [e] and o [o]. These words belong to the class of the accented carry-overs if one adopts the view that these two vowels had in Ancient Greek roughly the same pronunciation as in the modern language. This view is adopted by Allen (1974: 60) but not by Sturtevant (1940: 33, 47). As already mentioned, the latter argues against the equivalence of the Ancient and Modern Greek s based on contraction and lengthening facts. His arguments against the view that the pronunciation of o was roughly the same in Ancient Greek and in the modern language have a similar basis, due to the contraction of o+o to ou not w, and the secondary lengthening of o to ou rather than w; if there was no significant difference between the pronunciation of o in Ancient and in Modern Greek, w would be the expected outcome in each case in Ancient Greek. If one nonetheless follows Allen (1974: 60), the number of carry-overs is significantly increased, and would contain words such as the following:
-	nouns psXi, avspoq, noXspoq, ovopa, vopoq
-	adjectives/numerals KaKoq, a^ioq, niaToq, vsoq, evaToq
-	inflected verb forms nivsTs, psvsTs, ensas, enivs, etc.
128
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
3.2 Ethnohomophonographosemes
If it is assumed that apart from the pronunciation of the accent, Ancient Greek is pronounced in modern teaching practice in its authentic form, the pronunciation of all classes of carry-overs that were discussed in the previous section roughly corresponds to their Modern Greek pronunciation. This, however, is a significant oversimplification. Although the teaching of Ancient Greek in many countries follows the Erasmian pronunciation, in actuality there are several varieties of the Erasmian pronunciation that show the impact of the phonology of native modern languages and of various, sometimes wrong, perceptions of the authentic Ancient Greek pronunciation (Allen 1974: 125-144, Petrounias 2001: 952). Therefore, the discussion of carry-overs needs to take into account their potential interaction with the traditions of the pronunciation of Ancient Greek and thus with potential effects on the teaching of Modern Greek to classicists. In some cases this can mean that the pronunciation of an Ancient Greek word is closer to its pronunciation in Modern Greek in its ancient form. An example is words containing the letters 9 and x or the digraph ou, which are pronounced in many traditions according to their Modern Greek pronunciation, namely [f], [h] and [u] (Petrounias 2001: 952). As a result, the pronunciation of some words may be much closer to Modern than to Ancient Greek. An example is the word 91X0^. If 9 is pronounced as [f] and if ou is pronounced as [u], the Erasmian pronunciation of 91X0^, as well as some of its inflected forms (91X0U, 91X2, 9iXouq) corresponds to Modern Greek (namely, [filos], [filu], [file], [filus]) much more closely than to the authentic ancient Greek pronunciation ([philos], [philo], [phile], [philos]). We call these words ethnohomophonographosemes.
Other aspects of the Erasmian pronunciation can also have significantly different effects on teaching Modern Greek to classicists. For example, there is the so-called Henninian pronunciation, in which Ancient Greek words are pronounced according to the Latin accentuation rules (see Allen 1974: 135-136, Petrounias 2001: 954). The word avGpwnoq in this tradition is accentuated on the penultimate syllable and corresponds to neither Ancient nor Modern Greek accentuation. This pronunciation is used in the Netherlands, in South Africa, in Great Britain and in the Commonwealth (Allen, loc. cit.).10
This also means that effects of national traditions of the Erasmian pronunciation on teaching Modern Greek to classicists need to be examined for each of these traditions separately. This issue lies beyond the scope of the present paper and is a subject of a larger project we aim at conducting. The effects
10 It is interesting to observe that the Henninian pronunciation is reflected also in earlier Slovenian literature (namely, in a poem of France Prešeren), which indicates that this pronunciation used to be much more widespread (in the 19th century) than is the case nowadays (Grošelj 1970-1971).
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity	129
of one of the varieties of the Erasmian pronunciation on teaching of Modern Greek are further discussed below in §4.
3.3 False friends
As was shown in passage (5), some words display phonological properties of carry-overs but have a different meaning in Ancient Greek from that in Modern Greek. We use the term "false friends" for these words. An example is the word ^dXiata, which means 'most' in Ancient Greek and 'yes, indeed' in the modern language. Another term for words with phonological properties of carry-overs but with a different meaning in Modern Greek from that in the ancient language is homophonograph. Furthermore, we use the term false friends for words that have the same written form in Ancient and Modern Greek but different pronunciation and meaning. These words can also be called homographs. The same as in the case of carry-overs, our analysis is based on the etymologies of LKN; therefore, false friends are words that have, according to these etymologies, a different meaning in Ancient Greek from that seen in Modern Greek (cf. Petrounias 1998: xxii); this is the case also with the verb naiSsuw (AG [paideuo] 'bring up, teach', MG [peSevo] 'pester'):
(9)	[apx. naiSevw 'avaxps^a>, SKnaiSeuw' (r an^£P. arm. ^°v.)]
[AG naiSevu) 'bring up, educate' (MG meaning Medieval)]
Examples of both types offalse friends are given in Table 1.
These words show that knowledge of Ancient Greek can cause misunderstanding (or, interference errors) in Modern Greek. Consider, for instance, a passage such as that in (10):
(10)	H xpansZa eivai nXouaia.
The bank is rich.
In this case, in teaching Modern Greek to classicists, it would need to be stressed that the word tpansZa in Modern Greek means 'bank' rather than 'table', as was the case in Ancient Greek, and that the verb form eivai is in Modern Greek a finite form (namely the 3rd person singular or plural of the verb 'to be'), rather than the present infinitive of this verb, as was the case in the ancient language.11
11 For further details of our approach to teaching Modern Greek to classicists, as well as for additional materials, see the website Greek Ancient and Modern: A resource for teaching and study of the Greek language in all its phases, https://u.osu.edu/greek/.
130	Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
Table 1: Ancient-Modern Greek false friends
Ancient			GREEK	Modern		
Meaning	Pronunciation	Lower case letters	CAPITAL LETTERS	Lower case letters	Pronunciation	Meaning
foreigner	[barbaros]	BAPBAPOZ ßapßapoc;			[varvaros]	barbarian
marry	[gamö]	ya^ü	TAMO	ya^œ	[yamo]	f***
private	[idios]	ïôioç	IAIOZ	iôioç	[iôios]	the same
to be a slave	[döleüö]	AOYAEYn ôouXeûœ			[ôulévo]	work
assembly	[ekklêsia]	eKKX^aia	EKKAHZIA	eKKXr|aia	[eklisia]	church
the right moment	[kairos]	KAIPOZ Kaipoç			[keros]	weather, time
beautiful	KAAOZ KaXoç [kalos]					good
girl	[kore]	KOPH Kopri			[kori]	daughter
power	KPATOZ KpàToç [kratos]					state
possession	[ktéma]	KTrj^a	KTHMA	KTf|^a	[ktima]	estate
more	[mällon]	^aXXov	MAAAON	^àXXov	[malon]	probably
most	MAAIZTA ^aXiaTa [malista]					indeed
bring up	[paideuö]	nAIAEYn naiôeûœ			[peôévo]	pester
denouncer	[sykophantes]	ZYKOOANTHZ auKO<pàvTr|c;			[sikofa(n)dis]	slenderer
free time	[skhole]	ZXOAH axoXr|			[sholi]	school
table	[trapedza]	TPAnEZA TpaneÇa			[trapeza]	ban
seasonable	[höraios]	ûpaioç	nPAIOZ	œpaioç	[oréos]	beautiful
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity	131
3.4 Homographosemes
In addition to carry-overs and false friends, passages (2)-(6) also contain words with the same meaning and written form in Ancient and in Modern Greek but with different pronunciations; an example is the adverb Katw from passage (6), and additional examples include vo^iiw 'think, "ypa^w 'write', Gavato; 'death, KivSuvo; 'danger, avGpwno; 'man', etc. We call these words homographosemes.12
In this case, the similarity between the ancient and the modern word is a result of the modern Greek orthographic system (which remains relatively conservative) rather than of the lack of semantic or formal change. Still, such words draw attention to the fact that in addition to different classes of carryovers, which are pronounced, at least in the modern pedagogical practice, in roughly the same way as in Modern Greek, some ancient and modern Greek words are equivalent only in terms of their written forms. More specifically, they are equivalent when written with capital letters, whereas there may be distinctions between the written form of these words in Modern Greek and in ancient texts, when written with lower case letters. For instance, the word ANOPOnOZ is written as avGpwno; in Ancient Greek texts but avGpwno; in Modern Greek. By using their skills in Ancient Greek, classicists are able to understand such words in Modern Greek written texts, although they may not be able to pronounce them correctly (or to recognize their Modern Greek spoken forms). Examples are given in passages (11) and (12):
(11)	Aeyovxai noAAa. A lot is being said.
(12)	'Epxovxai o nexpo; Kai | EAev|. Peter and Eleni are coming.
Such examples can also be introduced in teaching Modern Greek to classicists from the earliest stages on, at least in their written forms.
4. SOME STATISTICAL DATA
Focusing on teaching the ancient language in Slovenia, this section provides statistical data on the phenomena that are discussed above, that is on different
12 Depending on the variety of the Erasmian pronunciation, the pronunciation of some of these words in actual teaching practice may (roughly) correspond to their Modern Greek pronunciation. In this section we focus on words that are homographosemes from the perspective of diachronic processes that affected the Greek language.
132
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
classes of carry-overs, false friends and homographosemes. These data show that none of these types of words are insignificant in learning Ancient Greek. Therefore, it is reasonable to take them into account in teaching Modern Greek to classicists, as is the case in our approach.
Table 2 shows how Slovenian students of Ancient Greek are taught to pronounce Ancient Greek letters, indicating also that in some aspects, this pronunciation may be much closer to Modern Greek than to its ancient predecessor. First, the table shows that the pronunciation of the letters representing sounds that appear to have undergone no significant change follows their Ancient Greek pronunciation, thus (roughly) corresponding also to their modern pronunciation. As noted in §3.1, these letters include k, X, v, n, a, t, ty, as well as a and i (or a/i) (when they represent short vowels). Furthermore, the table shows important divergences from the authentic Ancient Greek pronunciation. Thus students are not taught to distinguish between the pronunciation of Ancient Greek short and long vowels (note the lack of distinction in the cases of o and w, £ and r|, as well as long and short i and u). Moreover, the letters 9 and x are pronounced as [f], [h] rather than [ph], [kh]. Therefore, their pronunciation is much closer to Modern Greek than to its ancient predecessor, as appears to be the case in many varieties of the Erasmian pronunciation (see §3.2). Another such feature is the pronunciation of the digraph ou, which is pronounced as (short) [u] rather than [o] or [u], as was the case in Classical Greek (see Babic, loc. cit.). Additional divergences from the authentic Classical Greek pronunciation include the pronunciation of double consonants (which are pronounced as single consonants), as well as the lack of distinction between different accent marks.13 In these cases too, this variety of the Erasmian pronunciation is much closer to the modern than to the authentic Ancient Greek pronunciation. Finally, it is worth noting that students are given no information about the openness of the vowels o (w) and £ (ai).
These data suggest that Slovenian students of Ancient Greek are likely to learn words that can be considered as true carry-overs (e.g., Ta), as well as accented carry-overs (e.g., ^ia, KaTa, Ti); see §3.1. As for the carry-overs containing the vowels £/o, one needs to take into account that their native language distinguishes between open-mid and close-mid vowels [e] and [o], as well as that native languages usually have a significant impact on the Erasmian pronunciation of Ancient Greek (see §3.2). This means that students may often pronounce these letters as close-mid rather than as open-mid vowels, and that in teaching Modern Greek, significant attention may need to be given to the correct pronunciation of these vowels.
13 On this issue, see also footnote 9 above.
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity	133
Table 2: Ancient Greek alphabet in the Slovenian tradition (Babic 1997: 23)
Name of the letter	Letter		Our Pronunciation	Authentic AG Pronunciation
	Capital	Lower-case		
aX^a (alfa)	A	a	a	
pfTa (beta)	B	P	b	
yà|i|ia (gama)	r	Y	g	
ÔéXta (delta)	A	Ô	d	
s YiXôv (epsilon)	E	£	e	(ë)
Zfta (zeta)	Z	Z	dz	
|Ta (eta)	H	n	e	(e)
9fta (theta)	0	e	th	
iwTa (iota)	I	i	i	(ï, ï)
Kànna (kappa)	K	K	k	
Xà|ipÔa (lambda)	A	X	l	
|iù (mi)	M	I	m	
vù (ni) y	N	v	n	
Çî/Çsî (ksi)	H	Ç	ks	
0 |iiKpôv (omikron)	O	0	o	(ô)
nî/nsî (pi)	n	n	p	
pw (ro)	p	P	r	
aîy|a (sigma)	E	0, Ç	s	
Taù (tau)	T	T	t	
u YiXôv (ipsilon)	Y	u	y (û)	(y, y)
^î/^sî (fi)	$	9	f	ph
Xî/X£î (hi)	X	X	h	kh
^î/^sî (psi)	^	Y	ps	
w |éya (omega)	n	w	o	ô
Furthermore, in learning Ancient Greek vocabulary, students are also likely to learn ethnohomophonographosemes (see §3.2). Taking into account the aforementioned letters (and digraphs) whose pronunciation is closer to Modern than to Ancient Greek, this category includes words such as àXXà, oùpavôç, 9ÎX0Ç, X^Pa, etc. As is likely to be the case also in other traditions of the Erasmian pronunciation, Slovenian students may also learn false friends (e.g., ôouXsùœ, naiôsùœ) and homographosemes. The latter category includes words such as avGpœnoç, kîvôuvoç—note, however, that words such as oùpavôç or àXXà, which may be considered as homographosemes in some
134
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
varieties of the Erasmian pronunciation, are ethnohomophonographosemes in the Slovenian tradition.14
In the last few decades, Mihevc-Gabrovec (1978) has been the most commonly used textbook for teaching the ancient language in Slovenian schools. Table 3 below below shows that this textbook contains all of the above categories of Ancient Greek words. It is also worth noting that in absolute terms, none of these words, except for those belonging to the category of (potential) true homophonographosemes, seem insignificant.
Table 3: Inflected words in Mihevc-Gabrovec (1978)
	Number of words	Learned words
True homophonographosemes	0-4	0-3
Accented homophonographosemes	12	2
Accented homophonographosemes with e/o	105	31
Ethnohomophonographosemes	444	95
Homographosemes	2340	484
False friends	176	1
This table also shows numbers of words that belong in the standard modern language to the learned tradition and are characterized in the main lemma of LKN as "learned" (Xoyioq, Xoy.); an example is the Modern Greek preposition ev, discussed already in §3.1:
(13) ev [en] npo9.: (Xoy.) ev [en] prep.: (learn.)
The table shows that in each of the classes, words belonging to the Modern Greek learned vocabulary are much less frequent than those from the common vocabulary. These data are important to stress because higher relative frequencies of words belonging to the learned tradition would mean that carry-overs learned in Ancient Greek classes are unlikely to be used in the most common speaking situation (in Modern Greek). This is not the case, however. A number of scholars have observed that a significant part of the most common Modern Greek vocabulary originates from the ancient language (cf. Pe-trounias 2000: 57, Manolessou 2013). Therefore, it is not surprising that such words are found also in the textbook that is examined here, without being characterized as learned in LKN. Examples include:
14 See also footnote 12 above.
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
135
-	(potential) true carry-overs (or homophonographosemes): ta, ev, ek, |^sv;
-	accented carry-overs (homophonographosemes), including those with the vowels o/e: ^ia, KaKo;, KaKa, vso;, nivete, enive;, enive, eneae;, eneae, vo^o;, ^sXi, etc.;
-	ethnohomophonographosemes: aKouw, e^w, nivw, tps^w, tps^w including some of their inflected forms (e.g., exete, tpsxete, tps^ete, etpe^e;, etpe^e, etpexe;, etpexe); aorist forms such as eawaa, eawae; noun forms ovo^a, ovo^ata, ovo^atwv, aXXo;, aXXa, ato^a, ato^ata, aw^a, aw^ata, etc.
-	homographosemes: verb forms GsXw, GsXete, ypa^w, "ypa^ete, eypa^e, ovo^aZw, ovo^aZei;, ovo^aZei, ovo^aZete, ovo^aZo^ai, ovo^aZetai, ovo^aZovtai, eXeye;, eXeye, Xsyo^ai, Xsyetai, X£"yovtai; noun forms Geo;, Geou, Geoi, Gewv, Geou;, avGpwno;, avGpwnou, avGpwnwv, avGpwnou;, KivSuvo;, KivSuvou, KivSuvou;, etc.
Furthermore, some of the words in the textbook investigated are false friends. These words rarely belong to the learned vocabulary of Modern Greek, an observation which further supports the view that avoiding interference errors originating from knowledge of the ancient language is an important part of teaching Modern Greek to classicists.15 In the textbook examined, false friends include both homophonographs (e.g., ^dXiata) and homographs (e.g., SouXeuw and naiSeuw), and are also mentioned in Table 1 above.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Our data show that a beginners' textbook of Ancient Greek may contain a few hundred carry-over words, their exact number depending on the variety of the Erasmian pronunciation that is adopted in local teaching practice. These words have (rough) phonological and semantic matches in the modern language. Classicists can start learning Modern Greek by using these words, without being told their pronunciation and meaning in Modern Greek. It is true that some of the carry-overs are a part of the learned Modern Greek vocabulary, which might speak against using the vocabulary, as taught in Ancient Greek class, in Modern Greek. However, other words of this type are highly frequent words in Modern Greek and can be used in plausible Modern Greek sentences, as well as dialogues. This is the advantage of our proposal, which also contrasts with earlier approaches to learning Modern Greek to classicists. Furthermore, this approach shows to students of Ancient Greek that by learning the ancient language, they have also learned a part of Modern Greek and
15 The only exception is pXaa^npia (AG 'word of evil omen', MG 'blasphemy'), which is a learnèd expression in Modern Greek; see LKN, s.v. pXaaçnP'a.
136
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
may help in overcoming the idea of language corruption and decline, which continues to characterize classicists' perception of the history of the Greek language (and ancient languages in more general terms).
Due to various differences between Ancient and Modern Greek, classicists are also prone to mistakes; for instance, those concerning the use offalse friends in Modern Greek, e.g. naiSsuw and ^dXiata. Whereas the phenomenon of carry-overs suggests that a part of Modern Greek vocabulary can be introduced without any explaining, avoiding such mistakes needs to be a part of teaching Modern Greek to classicists as well. The example offalse friends— which are, according to our analysis, much less frequent than carry-overs— nonetheless suggests that classicists are likely to have more advantages than disadvantages in learning Modern Greek.
Finally, although we have taken a practical tack in this article, in what is essentially an exercise in applied historical linguistics, the material we have discussed is relevant for a more general issue in the study of language change. That is, one dimension of our approach has to do with the degree of difference in pronunciation, meaning, etc. between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek forms. In this regard, it is interesting to compare our approach to changes in Greek with that of Pappas and Moers (2011). Their study was aimed at testing, based on data from Greek, a claim that there is less change in general in more frequent lexemes. They developed a "scoring" system for measuring degree of change that is different in detail from the way we would do so, but we consider it significant to see that there have been other scholars before us who operated with the same basic idea of distinguishing ways in which different types of change can contribute to making language state X and a later form of X (X') differ from one another. Our concerns are similar to theirs, but we take more subtle details into consideration and we have different goals, ours being more practical in nature and drawing on theoretical matters, but not concerned with advancing the theory per se. In any case, though, it is pleasing, and telling, to follow in the footsteps of these other scholars in regard to degree of difference between chronologically separated language states.
Jerneja Kavčič University of Ljubljana jerneja.kavcic@ff.uni-lj.si
Brian Daniel Joseph The Ohio State University joseph.1@osu.edu
Christopher Brown The Ohio State University brown.2583@osu.edu
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
137
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Sydney W. 1974. Vox Graeca. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Babič, Matjaž. 1997. Grška slovnica. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christidis, Anastasios F., ed. 2001. Iaropla Tqc eXXqviKqc yXéaaa,: Anó Ti, ap^é, éu, rqv
varepn ap^aióT^Ta. Thessaloniki: Ivatitouto N£osAAr|viKwv ZnouSwv. Fallmerayer, Jakob P. 1845. Fragmente aus dem Orient. Vol. 2. Tübingen: J.G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung.
Grošelj, Milan. 1970-1971. "Prešernov grški citat." Jezik in slovstvo 16:121.
Hamp, Eric P. 2003. "Prehistoric Greek Phonological Chronology, with Some Reflections
on Sibilance, Aspiration, and Spirancy." Journal of Greek Linguistics 4:65-68. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd edition.
Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. Joseph, Brian D. 1985. "European Hellenism and Greek nationalism: some effects of ethno-centrism on Greek linguistic scholarship." Journal of Modern Greek Studies 3 (1): 87-96. Joseph, Brian D. 2009. "Greek." In The World's Major Languages, edited by Bernard
Comrie, 347-372. New York: Routledge. Kavagia, Vasiliki, ed. 2009. AiaSpopé, anó Ta Ap^aía aTa Néa EXXqviKá, EKnaiSevTiKó liorfdqpa yia ap^iKó enlneSo: ria padqTé, ap^aíuv eWqviKáv. Athens: eksotik^ AX^a.
Kolokouris, Ilias. 2020. Modern Greek for Classicists: A Graded Reader. New York: The Paideia Institute.
Laiou, Natalia, ed. 1999. Néa EXXqviKá yia KXaaiKov, 0iXoXóyov,. Athens: 'I5pu|ia Tpiavta^uXAiSri.
LKN: Ae^iKÓ Tq, KoivrfcNeoeWrjviKrjc. Thessaloniki: Ivatitouto N£osAAr|viKwv ZnouSwv,
'I5pu|ia MavóXn Tpiavta^uMíSn, 1998. Mackridge, Peter. 2009. Language and National Identity in Greece 1766-1976. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Manolessou, Io. 2013. "Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek." In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics Online, edited by Georgios K. Giannakis. Leiden and Boston: Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214448X_eagll_COM_00000095. Mihevc-Gabrovec, Erika.1978. Grščina: teksti in vaje za pouk grščine. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
Pappas, Panayiotis A., and Arne O. Mooers. 2011. "Phylogenetic Methods in Historical
Linguistics: Greek as a Case Study." Journal of Greek Linguistics 11:198-220. Petrounias, Evangelos, 1998. "Eiaay«yr|." In Ae^iKÓ Tq, Koivrfc NeoeXXqviKqc, xx-xxiii.
Thessaloniki: Ivatitouto N£osAAr|viKwv EnouSwv, 'I5pu|ia MavóXr| Tpiavta^uXAiSri. Petrounias, Evangelos. 2000. "I5iart£pÓTr|T£c; tr|c; v£o£AAr|viKr|c; £TU|io\oyia;;." In AiSaaKaXía Tqc eXXqviKqc yX&aaa,: rXéaaa Kai ^eTappvd^íaei,, edited by X. A. TaoXdK^;, 57-85. Thessaloniki: KwSiKa;. Petrounias, Evangelos. 2001. "H npo^opd tr|c; apxaía; £\Xr|viKr|c; atou; v£ÓT£pou;
Xpóvou;." In Anastasios F. Christidis, ed., 942-957. Petrounias, Evangelos. 2010. "Internationalisms Based on Ancient Greek Lexical Elements: A (Slippery) Bridge to Modern Greek." MeXéTe, yia Tqv eXXqviKq yXéaaa
30:503-515.
138
Jerneja Kavčič, Brian D. Joseph, Christopher Brown
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1940. The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. 2nd edition. Philadephia:
University of Pennsylvania. Thomson, George D. 1951. "The Teaching of Greek." Higher Education Quarterly 5 (4): 380-386.
Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 1938. NeoeWrjviKrj rpappariKrj. Vol. 1, IoropiKrf Eioayuyrf.
Athens: IvaTiTouTo NeoeAAr|viK«v ZnouSwv Tsantsanoglou, Kyriakos. 2001. "Tovia^o^." In Anastasios F. Christidis, ed., 985-990. Wilson, Fiona M., Panayiotis Pappas, and Arne O. Mooers. 2019. "The Role of Frequency of Use in Lexical Change." Diachronica 36 (4): 584-612.
ABSTRACT
The ideology of decline is a part of the history of the study and characterization of the Greek language from the Hellenistic period and the Roman Atticist movement right up to the emergence of katharevousa in the 19th century and the resulting modern diglossia. It is also clear, however, that there is an overwhelming presence of Ancient Greek vocabulary and forms in the modern language. Our position is that the recognition of such phenomena can provide a tool for introducing classicists to the modern language, a view that has various intellectual predecessors (e.g., Albert Thumb, Nicholas Bachtin, George Thomson, and Robert Browning). We thus propose a model for the teaching of Modern Greek to classicists that starts with words that we refer to as carry-overs. These are words that can be used in the modern language without requiring any explanation of pronunciation rules concerning Modern Greek spelling or of differences in meaning in comparison to their ancient predecessors (e.g., KaKo; 'bad, |iKpoc; 'small, vso; 'new, |iš\i 'honey, mvsTC 'you drink'). Our data show that a beginners' textbook of Ancient Greek may contain as many as a few hundred carry-over words, their exact number depending on the variety of the Erasmian pronunciation that is adopted in the teaching practice. However, the teaching of Modern Greek to classicists should also take into account lexical phenomena such as Ancient-Modern Greek false friends, as well as Modern Greek words that correspond to their ancient Greek predecessors only in terms of their written forms and meanings.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, vocabulary, language teaching, language change
POVZETEK
Kako učiti klasične filologe novo grščino: uporabni vidik jezikovne kontinuitete
Ideja o propadanju jezika je zaznamovala zgodovino in preučevanje grškega jezika vse od helenistične dobe in aticističnega gibanja v cesarski dobi do pojava katarevuse in posledično diglosije v 19. stoletju. A obenem je povsem jasno, da so starogrško besedišče in jezikovne oblike pomemben del modernega jezika. Kar se tiče vprašanja, kako poučevati novo grščino klasične filologe, v članku zavzamemo stališče, da so prav tovrstni jezikovni pojavi lahko primerno izhodišče. Pristop ima vrsto idejnih predhodnikov, med katere sodijo Albert Thumb, Nicholas Bachtin, George Thomson in Robert Browning. Naš predlog
Teaching Modern Greek to Classicists: Taking Advantage of Continuity
139
je, naj poučevanje novogrškega jezika izhaja iz pojava t.i. prenešenk ali starogrških besed, ki jih je mogoče pravilno uporabiti v novogrškem jeziku brez učenja glasoslovnih in pomenskih razlik med obema jezikovnima fazama. Takšne besede so denimo KaKo; (slab), piKpoc; (majhen), vso; (nov), pšAr (med), mvsTC (pijete). Podatki kažejo, da lahko učbenik za učenje starogrškega jezika na začetni stopnji vsebuje nekaj sto tovrstnih besed, njihovo natančno število pa je odvisno od različice Erazmove izgovarjave, ki se uporablja pri pouku stare grščine. Obenem je pri učenju nove grščine treba upoštevati obstoj starogrških besed, ki imajo v novi grščini ti. lažne prijatelje, in novogrških besed, ki se s starogrškimi ustrez-nicami ujemajo po zgolj pisni obliki in pomenu.
Ključne besede: stara grščina, nova grščina, besedje, učenje jezika, jezikovna sprememba